“President Obama counseled supporters Wednesday evening “not to get too bogged down” in details when explaining his record to voters during the campaign.

The president, in a video conference with supporters Wednesday night from Chicago, encouraged his backers to focus on broad themes when it comes to his policies on taxes and war, instead of the specifics of individual policies.

“I think the key is not to get too bogged down in detail,” the president said last night.”

Having cooked up a Satan Sandwich this week, by no means does Barack Obama want to discuss details about anything he has done. Fellow Chicagoan Al Capone got sent to the penitentiary because of “details”. Barack Obama, as he has personally done, is now instructing his corrupt cult to ixnay on the etailsday:

“If somebody asks about taxes, nobody is really interested in hearing what precise marginal tax rate change would you like to see in the tax code,” Obama said. “What they want to know is that our campaign stands for a fair, just approach to the tax code that says everybody has to chip in, and that it’s not right if a hedge fund manager is being taxed at a lower rate than his or her secretary.”

On Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama said: “If somebody asks about the war, whether it’s Iraq or Afghanistan — if it’s Iraq, you have a pretty simple answer, which is all our folks are going to be out of there by the end of the year. If it’s Afghanistan, you can talk about, look, we think it’s time for us to transition to Afghan lead and rebuild here at home. So, again, it’s a values issue: Where are we prioritizing our resources?” [snip]

Obama said his campaign, led by Jeremy Bird, his national field director, would take the lead in ensuring that volunteers have good talking points to take out on the campaign trail. The president said his administration would also lay out new initiatives that would help his grassroots volunteers sell his record.

The president, himself a past community organizer, also said it wasn’t so bad for volunteers to tell questioners that they don’t know the answer.

“They don’t expect you to know the ins and outs of every single policy,” Obama said. “But they do expect that you’re going to treat them with courtesy and that you’re going to get back to them if you don’t know the answer to something.”

There you have Barack Obama specifically and in detail telling his cult to not bother explaining details to the electorate. There you have Obama laying out to his cult the way he bamboozles the public and avoids answering questions. Those details are so ugly and contrary to Obama’s answers that if the details are discussed the voters will continue to rebel. Barack Obama does not want details discussed.

Unfortunately for the corrupt clown from Chicago, today is also the day that the two chief operatives at Politico decided to discuss details. In a very long article Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen, two reporters who used to be very good at their jobs until their real jobs became protecting Barack Obama, are back looking at the details Obama wants kept hidden:

“The politics of the debt fight were a drag for President Barack Obama, yanking his popularity to new lows. Here’s an even bigger drag: Obama emerges from the months-long fracas weaker — and facing much deeper and more durable political obstacles — than his own advisers ever imagined.

The consensus has been that for all his problems, Obama is so skilled a politician — and the eventual GOP nominee so flawed or hapless — that he’d most likely be reelected.

Don’t buy into it.”

Hey, Jim and Mike, Obama is a boob as a politician as just about anyone with eyes can now see. It was you guys in Big Media that protected Obama and attacked every other candidate thereby making Obama look like a genius. But Obama was always a corrupt boob willing to do and say anything to advance himself. You know like, attack millionaires and billionaires then give them billions/trillions in bailouts in exchange for a few campaign dollars. But you are right about those “fundamentals”:

“This breezy certitude fails to reckon with how weak his fundamentals are a year out from the general election. Gallup pegs his approval rating at a discouraging 42 percent, with his standing among independents falling 9 points in four weeks.

His economic stats are even worse. The nation has 2.5 million fewer jobs today than the day Obama took office, a fact you’re sure to hear the Republicans repeat. Consumer confidence is scraping levels not seen since March 2009.

Where’s the bright spot? Hard to see. Obama has few, if any, domestic achievements that enjoy broad public support. No one assumes employment, growth or housing prices to pick up much, if at all — something Obama is essentially powerless to change. And the political environment and electoral map are significantly tougher than in 2008, especially in true up-for-grabs states.”

Amazing. Only now, in August of 2011 do we hear that Obama has “few, if any, domestic achievements”. Wasn’t Obama just a few months ago, certainly last year, the new FDR? Obama the new Reagan? Obama the new Zeus? Nope, he’s just a dope, peddlin’ false Hope.

According to Jim and Mike, Obama Dimocrats (well actually those that pretended for a while to be Obama Dimocrats as they waited for the time to tell the truth about the boob) are beginning to look at the details in a sober, Hopium-less, manner:

“The historical precedents of what happens to incumbent presidents in these economic circumstances are not positive or encouraging,” said Geoff Garin, a top Democratic pollster. “There has been a false sense of confidence among a lot of Democratic activists.” [snip]

Privately, however, Obama’s team is concerned about the factors beyond its control, talking of an imminent need to retool their economic message and strategy heading into 2012. Absent the president’s ability to defy political gravity, one Obama adviser conceded, “The numbers add up to defeat.”

“Based on interviews with a wide array of top government and political officials, here’s why the adviser might be on the something:

MALAISE

Fast-forward a year or so, when voters are starting to tune in, and the Republican nominee will be able to pluck economic data — not spin, empirical data — to make the following case against Obama:

“We were promised hope and change — but instead life has been a drag in the Obama years. Millions of people lost jobs, saw the value of their house drop every month he’s been in office, never realized the economic growth he promised and were so cash-strapped they couldn’t buy the big-ticket items they were used to.”

No Republican has harnessed all the available data to make the broader case against the president.

One will. And Obama’s advisers don’t expect the data points to change much by the time the attacks start rolling in.

The White House anticipates unemployment at 8.25 percent, and Goldman Sachs and others warn the number could be higher — close to 9 percent, which would mean no net job growth after the biggest stimulus package in the history of the world. No president has won reelection when unemployment was higher than 7.2 percent in 50 years.

Median home values have declined every month Obama has been in office, too, according to Zillow, which monitors real estate markets. The site’s chief economist now predicts home value won’t bottom out until 2012 “or later.” So, the one asset Americans relied on for wealth — and until the crash, for spending money — will be the biggest concern for many.

And because economic growth never lived up to the expectations set early by different White House officials at different times — remember “the summer of recovery”? — voters simply don’t have the money or confidence to buy big things like they used to.”

We opposed the Obama stimulus scam because although we understand Keynesian economics we also have common sense that tells us throwing away trillions of dollars in election year slush funds instead of intelligent growth plans is a waste of money. Bailing out speculators (recall how FDR shut down banks and called out speculators) was the Obama way as long as the unions and company bosses gave Obama Dimocrats and Obama campaign money. Instead of attacks on speculators and the full brunt of economic law against companies which produced junk, Obama spent trillions on garbage:

“The auto industry is on pace to sell nearly 30 percent fewer new cars than it did a decade ago, and the sales of stoves and ovens haven’t been this low since 1992, according to David Leonhardt, The New York Times columnist who often defends the Obama administration’s economic policies. He provided Republicans some handy stats last month in a column with the stark conclusion: “We are living through a tremendous bust.”

Democratic Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley worries that Obama will be blamed for a “jobs crisis” — and that he realized the danger too late. [snip]

BLOAT

[snip] The size-of-government spat is a hard one for the president to win.

By the time the next election rolls around, the government will have taken on almost $7 trillion in debt under Obama. It’s hard to explain away a number so big.

Republicans will find clever ways to make that number more digestible, including handy stats such as reducing that amount to $22,500 in new debt for every man, woman and child in the nation — enough to pay for a new Toyota Corolla for each of them.

Or look at it from another vantage point.

In the past four years, the average voter has grown more dependent on government for his or her income than at any point since at least 1929, when such numbers were first tracked.

This means Social Security, Medicare and unemployment are the big income drivers — not new jobs and bigger salaries.

“The big issue for him will be whether people see light at the end of the tunnel when they ultimately vote,” Democratic Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire said in a telephone interview. “The people in my state want to hear that there is a good and bright and sound future. The average person is really concerned.”

All of these points meet on the electoral map, which isn’t looking great for Obama. [snip]

Looking at Obama’s 2008 swing-state wins, Democrats have all but given up on Indiana and know that he will have trouble keeping two other traditionally red states, Virginia and North Carolina; may have been hurt in Florida by unhappiness in the Jewish community about Obama’s handling of Israel; and will have a dogfight for the Rust Belt prizes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where one respected state poll had him narrowly lagging Romney). Obama’s reelection strategy depends on running strong in the Mountain West, most critically in Colorado.

But without at least a couple of the traditional bellwether states, Obama will be a one-term president.

THE OBAMA LEGACY

A big hurdle for the president is the unpopularity of the very policies that his team thought would be big accomplishments in the first term.”

“A top Democratic strategist who is close to the White House said that Obama’s first-term record “is going to be, on balance, probably a liability” for his reelection, partly “because of the failure to sell and explain the things that they were doing.”

“I believe history will judge what they did to be correct,” the strategist said. “But the failure to communicate why they were doing it has meant that there is such confusion. … It’s ground he’s going to have to make up, rather than things he’s going to be able to run on.”

Poor deluded “Democratic strategist”. By now even those dolts should realize that the “failure to communicate” is the linchpin to Obama success. That linchpin is hide the salami details. If Obama did “communicate why they were doing it” the country would be angrier.

If Obama provided the details of what he has done, the pitchfork armies would cover every stretch of asphalt from sea to shining sea. Obama is a boob for all to see and the long sheathed knives are slowly glinting into the sun:

“Mark Penn, chief strategy for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and CEO Worldwide of Burson-Marsteller, said “the biggest problem is that he has not accumulated enough domestic accomplishments that people can easily recall. He either has to start accumulating them as [President Bill] Clinton did — and a budget deal is a big opportunity — or he has to convince people that he has the right policies overall — they just haven’t worked yet.”

Even in good times, Obama would have a tough reelection. The 2008 election — featuring a weak GOP candidate, in a terrible political environment for Republicans — obscured the inescapable fact of modern politics: This is a 50-50 nation, controlled at the presidential level by independents. [snip]

He entered office with 62 percent support among independents. But they took flight in the spring of 2009 — and have never returned. Those voters helped Republicans win the off-year gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, now-Sen. Scott Brown’s race in Massachusetts a few months later, ultimately control of the House — and, more important but less talked-about, many state legislatures around the country.”

First, it is clear many of the most prolific GOP fundraisers are sitting on the sidelines — but only for now. Operatives in both parties paid close attention to a smart story by USA Today showing that only one in five of John McCain’s elite fundraisers is working on behalf of a current GOP candidate. The same is true for many of former President George W. Bush’s elite money men and women.

This provides plenty of room for a new, more broadly electable, establishment-backed candidate such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie to jump in, or for Romney or another current candidate to eventually pull this hugely influential group off the sidelines.

The second troubling sign is a persistent — and probably irreparable — rift between Obama and many small and large business leaders. The White House worked hard after the 2010 elections at reconciliation, but there are few signs it worked.

Several top CEOs have said they and others will get into this race in a big way eventually, often by exploiting the Supreme Court ruling that allows them to funnel unlimited sums of money into presidential politics without fingerprints. At a private meeting the billionaire founder of Home Depot arranged last week between wealthy donors, including some Democrats, and Christie, the main rant in the room was that Obama was hostile to free markets and needed to be stopped.

If rich business leaders get off the sidelines, the big financial edge everyone expects Obama to enjoy could be a mirage.

Obama’s political advisers are sounding this alarm to any liberal donor who will listen, worried that their own biggest contributors are growing complacent. But its been hard to re-create the magic of 2008 — which just might be Obama’s biggest problem.”

It’s tough to get reelected once the details come out. Obama does not want those details to emerge from the darkness.

As the details of the disaster to America which is Barack Obama get tallied up the authors of that disaster will have to be punished. Barack Obama will someday also have to account for his crimes and misdemeanors. For now, it is important that every detail be examined and published. The details hidden thus far will one day paint the full portrait of the flim flam man from Chicago. It’s a paint by numbers portrait Obama does not want the public to see.

“Hey, Jim and Mike, Obama is a boob as a politician as just about anyone with eyes can now see. It was you guys in Big Media that protected Obama and attacked every other candidate thereby making Obama look like a genius”

—————

Exactly. They should all line up and take a bow so we can kick them in the….

You are wrong MO. His grey hair are from worrying about Impeachment and Disgrace along with failing to raise worthless dollars that he needs for his campaign to save his WH entertainment Center.Look
Away Look Away Dixie Land.

The great Depression of 29 was just a breeze compared to todays BO Mess.Hillary had it right in the debates about this A.. Ho..DOn’t give up Girl.We and the World needs YOU!!!!

Just in my e-mail: NYT scripts must be canceling in droves…
____________________

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Thursday, August 4, 2011 — 6:31 PM EDT
—–

Disapproval Rating of Congress at a Record 82 Percent, Poll Finds

The debate over raising the debt ceiling, which brought the nation to the brink of default, has sent disapproval of Congress to its highest level on record and left most Americans saying that creating jobs should now take priority over cutting spending, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

A record 82 percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job — the most since The Times first began asking the question in 1977, and even more than after another political stalemate led to a shutdown of the federal government in 1995.
More than four out of five people surveyed said that the recent debt ceiling debate was more about gaining political advantage than about doing what is best for the country. Nearly three-quarters said that the debate had harmed the image of the United States in the rest of the world.

TAPPER: Larry Summers in The Washington Post yesterday suggested that the economy had a 1-in-3 chance of heading back into a recession. Does the president share that view?

CARNEY: I was asked about this yesterday and —

TAPPER: Sorry, I wasn’t here yesterday.

CARNEY: No, that’s OK. I don’t — again, he’s — that’s a piece of economic analysis. We believe that — the president believes that the economy will continue to grow, that the economy will continue to create jobs and that we need to do everything we can to enhance that growth and enhance that job creation.

TAPPER: Well, one of the things —

CARNEY: I pointed out yesterday that it’s certainly the case, and this is an observation about outside analysts that – who continue to believe that the economy will grow the second half of this year and then we need to just focus on the things we can focus on, which is to take the measures necessary to spur economic growth and job creation.

TAPPER: I believe the Dow has gone down — obviously, the day is not over — but I believe the Dow’s gone down now more than during that controversial TARP vote. And analysts are saying that the reason that this is happening is because of uncertainty about the American economy, that we are entering a double-dip recession, or at the very least, a period of real softness and weakness for the U.S. economy. What is the administration doing about that?

CARNEY: Well, the analysis I saw today did not — was not about the American economy, particularly, in terms of what’s happening.

TAPPER: I’m talking about analysis from the last 20 minutes.

CARNEY: But there are obviously — there are a lot of global issues that affect the global economy and that obviously affect the American economy. We strongly believe, as I’ve said, that we will continue to grow and we will continue to create jobs, and we need to take the measures necessary to do that.

We have encountered in this calendar year a number of economic headwinds that could not have been foreseen: the tsunami — earthquake and tsunami in Japan that disrupted global supply chains; the unrest in the Middle East, which has an impact on oil prices; and the situation in Europe. So, you know, obviously that has hurt the economy globally and has slowed growth and job creation, but we believe that growth and job creation will continue.

TAPPER: Well, what is the president doing? We know that he went to a — — he went to fundraisers last night. What’s he doing today?

CARNEY: Jake, that is —

TAPPER: What is he doing —

CARNEY: The president — as the president has worked —

TAPPER: We hear him hectoring Congress about all the stuff that needs to be done to help create jobs —

CARNEY: That’s right. And Congress —

TAPPER: — and then he flew off to Chicago. What is he doing today?

CARNEY: The president is having meetings with his senior staff. The president has called on Congress to move quickly on things that have bipartisan support and are in Congress’s lap, the trade —

TAPPER: The same stuff he was doing a couple months ago, calling on Congress to pass things.

CARNEY: Congress has the power to pass legislation that the president can sign. The actions that it can take could create more jobs right now, if it passed the patent reform, if it passed the free trade agreements. And as you know, there are other issues that the president encourages and will push hard for the Congress to take up when it returns from its recess, including extension of the payroll tax cut, which would put — which has this year put an additional $1,000 in the pockets of every American, or typical American family.

And he believes we need to do that again next year, because that assists those families in having them — you know, giving them the ability to make ends meet, and puts money back into the economy, which in turn sustains businesses and creates jobs. And he will continue to come up with and propose measures that we in Washington together can take to spur further economic growth and job creation.

TAPPER: Has he called Mitch McConnell? Has he called John Boehner? Has — is he working on things that they can do? If every —

CARNEY: Jake, I don’t — I know you weren’t here yesterday, but I know you were here for most of the days before that, when this president and those leaders and others worked seven days a week to avert a major economic crisis in this country that would have made –

TAPPER: You’re the one always saying the president can walk and chew gum at the same time. I’m asking you —

CARNEY: Well, what are — are you asking me what — he is — he is focused —

TAPPER: Other than calling on Congress to pass things you’ve been calling on Congress to pass for months, what is he doing to help the economy?

CARNEY: He is working very closely with his senior economic advisers to come up with new proposals to help advance growth and job creation. He is working with members of Congress to help advance growth and job creation. And he will continue to do that. There are things that Congress can do now to create jobs, and they should. There are things that Congress will be able to do when they return from recess to help create jobs and spur growth, and they should. And he looks forward to working with Congress to do that.

It may be early in the campaign season, but the Communist Party USA already has seen fit to endorse Barack Obama for the 2012 election.

While noting he is disappointed with “some aspects” of the Obama administration’s domestic and foreign policy, Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA, threw his support behind Obama’s re-election bid.

In an article last week at People’s Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, Webb discussed the need for a third party consisting of the so-called working class and labor as well as “racially and nationally oppressed people, women, youth, immigrants, seniors, gay and straight.”

A majority of the world’s countries are gearing up to recognize a Palestinian state in September. But does Palestine really qualify?

BY STEVEN J. ROSEN | AUGUST 3, 2011

In a few weeks, an overwhelming majority in the United Nations General Assembly will likely vote for collective recognition of a Palestinian state. But which Palestinian state? Of the three Palestinian states the assembly could recognize, two are real and arguably could meet the requirements for statehood. But it is the third, purely imaginary one that the assembly will endorse, one that neither has a functioning government nor meets the requirements of international law.
COMMENTS (75) SHARE: Twitter Reddit Buzz More…

According to the prevailing legal standard, the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a “state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” Both the Hamas-controlled Palestinian entity in Gaza and the rival Fatah-governed Palestinian entity in the West Bank can be said to meet all four of these criteria of the law of statehood. The one on which the United Nations will vote does not.

In Gaza, Hamas controls a permanent population in a defined territory (i.e., Gaza within the armistice lines of 1949). Gaza has a functioning, if odious, government. And Hamas-controlled Gaza already conducts international relations with a large number of states. From a narrowly legal point of view, the Hamas Gaza entity could become a state, another miserable addition to a very imperfect world.

Of course, a Hamas state in Gaza is not something most of the world wants to see. A Hamas state allied to Iran would be a severe blow to international peace and security, and it would not be a state deserving of recognition by any democracy. It would be a state arising from the military coup of June 2007, a state that engages in large-scale violations of treaty obligations and human rights. Nor does Hamas seek statehood for Gaza alone. Hamas wants eventually to rule the whole of mandatory Palestine, comprising not just the West Bank along with Gaza, but all of today’s Israel too. Gaza alone is too small a prize for so grand an ambition. So this possible state is not on the table.

The Fatah Palestinian entity in the West Bank also could meet the legal requirements for statehood, and it would have more international support. It has a functioning government in the Palestinian Authority (PA), a permanent population, and international relations with a very large number of states. It also controls a defined territory, which comprises what are called areas A and B as defined under the Oslo II agreement of September 1995, plus additional territory subsequently transferred by Israel in agreed further redeployments. (Area A is the zone of full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority, and Area B is a zone of Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.) The Fatah West Bank entity within these lines also could be recognized as a state under international law.

But Fatah, the PA, and the broader PLO do not seek statehood for this West Bank entity that arguably could meet the legal requirements. Their minimum demand is a state that includes Gaza along with the West Bank, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and all the other parts of mandatory Palestine that were under Jordanian and Egyptian control before 1967. Fatah, the PA, and the PLO are demanding title to lands and authority over populations they do not control, being as they are under the rule of Hamas and Israel.

Unlike the two Palestinian entities that already exist, either of which could be recognized as a Palestinian state because they seem to fulfill the legal requirements, the Palestinian entity that a General Assembly majority will recognize as a state this September does not actually exist on Earth. It is imaginary and aspirational, not real. And it does not meet the legal requirements.

First, it will have two rival presidents pursuing incompatible policies. Mahmoud Abbas is presenting himself as the president of the Palestine that is pressing the claim in the U.N. General Assembly, but he is not considered to be the president anymore by Hamas, the largest political party in the putative state. And Hamas has Palestine’s own laws on its side in this dispute. Abbas was elected in 2005 to serve until January 2009, so his term has expired. In 2009, he unilaterally extended his term for another year until January 2010 (an extension that also has expired), but that extension did not adhere to Article 65 of the Palestinian constitution, the Basic Law. Hamas, which controls a majority in the now defunct Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), opposed the extension. According to Article 65 of the Basic Law, the legally empowered president of Palestine, since January 2009, has been PLC Speaker Abdel Aziz Dweik, a deputy representing Hamas. Palestine’s ruling party, Hamas, considers Dweik, not Abbas, to be the legal president of Palestine, and it has a strong case.

Second, the Palestine that the General Assembly will recognize also will have two rival prime ministers pursuing incompatible policies. Hamas denies that Abbas has the authority to appoint Salam Fayyad as prime minister, because Abbas is not legally the president of Palestine under Article 65 and because Fayyad has not been empowered as prime minister by the Palestinian Legislative Council as required by Article 66 of the Basic Law. Neither his first appointment, on June 15, 2007, nor his reappointment on May 19, 2009, was confirmed by the PLC as required. Hamas, which controls the majority in the PLC, considers the legal prime minister of the Palestinian Authority to continue to be Ismail Haniyeh, a senior political leader of Hamas. Haniyeh was empowered by the PLC to be prime minister of Palestine in February 2006. Abbas dismissed Haniyeh from the office on June 14, 2007, after the Gaza coup, but Haniyeh counters that this decree violated articles 45, 78, and 83 and that he continues to exercise prime ministerial authority under Article 83. The PLC also continues to recognize Haniyeh’s authority as prime minister. Here again, Hamas has the law on its side.

Third, this putative state of “Palestine” will also have a legislature that never meets. Elected on Jan. 25, 2006, for a term of four years, the PLC has enacted no laws, passed on no ministers, and conducted no meetings since 2007. Instead, Abbas says, “It is my right as a president to legislate laws and decisions that are called decrees. These decrees are legal, as long as the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) is not able to convene.”

It is common for Palestinian observers and their supporters in the West to attribute the PLC’s inaction to the fact that Israel arrested 21 of its more radical members in June 2006 after the abduction of Gilad Shalit, most of whom are still in detention. The Carter Center, for example, states, “With most of its representatives in Israeli prisons, the Palestinian Legislative Council never assembled the required quorum for meetings and hence was unable to carry out legislative functions designated to the PLC.” But the PLC has 132 members, of whom fewer than 20 are detained by Israel, and a quorum of the PLC requires only one more than half the members — 67 — to be present. So it is not Israel that is preventing a quorum.

In fact, neither faction contending to rule Palestine actually wants the PLC to meet, for different reasons. Hamas does not want it brought to session to enact new laws or amendments to existing laws when its majority has been diluted, especially because it fears unfavorable amendments to the election law. And Fatah is only too happy to see the Hamas members in jail, because it too does not want the PLC to meet, lest it enforce the Basic Law by replacing Abbas and Fayyad. PLC Speaker Dweik, whom Hamas considers to be the legally empowered president of Palestine, has said of his own arrest by Israel, “Any action that put an end to our activity in the parliament was welcomed by many, among them the Palestinian Authority.”

Fourth, this Palestine that the General Assembly will recognize will also lack the ability to hold presidential or legislative elections as required by Article 47 of its Basic Law — not because Israel will prevent them, but again because the rival Palestinian rulers will not allow them to happen. Abbas’s constitutionally defined term expired in January 2009, and the terms of the PLC representatives expired on Jan. 25, 2010, so new elections for both are overdue. The 2005 Palestinian Elections Law No. 9, Article 2, which Hamas recognizes as legally binding, and the replacement Elections Law unilaterally decreed by Abbas on Sept. 2, 2007, Articles 2 to 4, which Hamas considers an unlawful usurpation of power under the constitution, require elections by now, but no such elections are in sight. Neither of the rivals wants an election to be held under the electoral rules recognized as legally binding by the other, and neither will permit the other to compete freely on territories it controls as required by both sets of regulations.

So there you have it. The General Assembly will make a remarkable decision about all this in the next few weeks. Instead of recognizing either of the two state-like entities that already exist, each having many of the attributes of statehood required by international law, the General Assembly will create an imaginary state that has two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers, a constitution whose most central provisions are violated by both sides, no functioning legislature, no ability to hold elections, a population mostly not under its control, borders that would annex territory under the control of other powers, and no clear path to resolve any of these conflicts. It is a resolution that plants the seeds for civil and international wars, not one that advances peace.

Several contributors here have recently said that mea culpas by former Waffles supporters get on their nerves. If this is true for everyone, then excuse the following; but personally, I like reading things like this:

Hillary for president

By Christopher Sprigman August 5, 2011

During the 2008 presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton ran an ad called “3 a.m. phone call.” The ad juxtaposed pictures of sleeping children with the insistent ring of a telephone. A grave voice asked us to consider who we would want in the White House when the phone rang at 3 a.m. with news of trouble. The message was clear: Barack Obama lacked the strength to be president.

I remember how angry that ad made me. I was newly hired as a junior professor, working hard to get tenure. My nonworking hours were, however, devoted almost entirely to getting Obama elected.

I didn’t have a high-profile role in the campaign; I worked behind the scenes drafting policy documents. But I traveled to Denver to speak at a policy debate held during the Democratic National Convention, and spoke at a Richmond, Va., campaign event alongside Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

The Obama campaign ran on the hard work of many thousands of people like me. But President Obama won’t be able to depend on the same kind of help in 2012. Because, it turns out, Hillary Clinton was right.

Like most Americans, I’ve spent the last several weeks watching in disbelief as Washington edged closer to defaulting on the nation’s debt. And now that the crisis is over, I’m even angrier. Obama has handed the GOP a victory that is disproportionate to either their real leverage (the GOP controls only one house of Congress) or the appeal of their ideas (Americans favor deficit reduction plans that include both spending cuts and tax increases over the GOP’s single-minded focus on cuts). The only thing the Republicans really had going for them was their determination to debauch the creditworthiness of the United States if they didn’t get their way. But against a weak president, that was enough.

First President Obama said he wanted a “clean deal,” one raising the debt limit without condition. The GOP said no. Then Obama demanded that any deal include both cuts and revenue increases. To soften GOP opposition, he offered $4 in cuts for every dollar in new revenues, but everyone could see he was negotiating with himself, and the GOP responded by rejecting any new revenues. Next was a proposal of all spending cuts, no tax increases, in return for the GOP’s agreement to grant enough borrowing authority to last through the 2012 election. Again, the GOP refused. Every time the GOP dug in, the president retreated. And he never explained to the American people in plain language the reason for Republicans’ intransigence — that they would rather the United States default on its debt than oblige the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share of the tax burden.

Which brings us to the final deal — about $2.5 trillion in cuts, no new revenues and the certainty of another debt battle before the 2012 election. The GOP has prevailed on all fronts.

But the real problem is deeper. From Franklin D. Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, Democrats created and vigilantly protected a system that provided decent retirement and medical benefits for the elderly, and basic medical care, food and income assistance for the poor. Even George W. Bush, no one’s idea of a liberal, never really challenged what Democrats created. In fact, Bush added a new drug benefit to Medicare.

That’s why it’s shocking that a Democrat, Barack Obama, has acquiesced in a process that will eviscerate the New Deal. Obama agreed to major cuts to entitlement programs. In return, Republicans gave nothing. And it won’t be the last time. The GOP has discovered a new playbook, one to which they’ll return as soon as the ink is dry. Next will be further Medicare cuts, and a hike in the Medicare eligibility age. Social Security recipients must also brace themselves for large benefit cuts. This will be done on the sly by limiting cost-of-living adjustments. And the retirement age will almost certainly be raised. It’s already 67 for those born after 1960, so you best plan to stay fit until at least 70.

I’m not a political expert, so I don’t know if Obama can be re-elected. I only know he shouldn’t be. He has broken with the faith that has sustained Democrats since the 1930s — faith in the power of government to soften inequality, and to provide some measure of security for the old, the poor and the sick.

Hillary, I’m sorry for not listening to you back in 2008. But perhaps you’ll give me another chance. Resign as secretary of state, and run against Obama in 2012. I will work my heart out for you. And I bet that millions of other angry Democrats will be with me.

Christopher Sprigman is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

JanH: “The Palestinians’ Imaginary State” – thanks, pretty good article. It doesn’t reference East/West Pakistan, though, which gained recognition in pretty much the same way and functioned willy-nilly for about 20 years.

admin August 4th, 2011 at 7:02 pm What’s Obama doing? Where’s Waldo?
———————-
Hopefully this question went through many minds yesterday. It was not hard to recall GWB being flown around on 9-11 until they figured out an appropriate Presidential response for him, so it is equally not difficult to envision that Thursday August 4, 2011 was for concocting Junior Jr’s story (ht NYS). The only coverage I viewed is this: ‘Thursday was a day for private celebration of his birthday and on the weekend their would be more public partying at Camp David.
Thanks admin for your continuing research/evaluations.

However, I remain extremely uneasy. One of my 90 something friends is certain he will not be re-elected due to his unpopularity as revealed by the newspaper she subscribes to. The 80 something friend combines CNN, the same newspaper, and some amount of acuity to be more cynical. She also pores over the USPS mailings which I generate, and yet she is confused – the Dim jabs at the Tea Party movement are working with her.

Less than an hour ago I caught the tail end of what was probably ABC’s World News Now. It had to have been a clip from his Chicago Party/Fundraiser and the topic was his gray hair. Whoever had the floor quipped: If your hair gets any whiter, the Tea Party will be able to endorse you. His side will keep pounding away at that – a perfect way to quash those genuine grass roots.

Jane Hamsher posted a significant official photo of Obama signing the debt deal bill yesterday all by himself in the Oval Office on Firedoglake, and contrasts that photo with several photos of his signing other bills, every time surrounded by interested members of Congress.

and one #(152) from firedoglake link above on the new Mini Congress just created by these murdering traitors:

found some interesting specifics about the calculated design behind, and deliberate time pressures built into the Catfood II Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, as admitted by the authors (Reid has claimed ownership) of this profoundly-undemocratic, top-down Party plan to avoid full and fair Congressional deliberation and debate, or amendment, on very consequential national policies.

The details are in this scripted back-and-forth that was inserted into the Congressional Record just before the Senate vote on Tuesday, without being publicly spoken, though the CR doesn’t make that clear (the script is placed between the Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell speeches that were delivered on the floor at or near noon, shortly before the vote on S. 365 began):

——-
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my friend the Republican leader, with whom I worked in drafting the provisions of this bill creating a joint committee to address deficit reduction. We wrote a number of deadlines in the bill to guide the work of the joint committee. I wanted to discuss with my colleague the consequences of missing these deadlines.

Section 402(g) of the amendment before us makes clear that if the joint committee fails to meet the November 23 deadline to vote on the report and proposed language, or if the Congress fails to meet the December 23 deadline to pass the joint committee bill, then the joint committee bill will lose its privilege. It would cease to benefit from expedited procedures under this amendment.

But I also want to make clear that if the joint committee or Congress fails to meet other deadlines in the title creating the joint committee, then that failure would not lead to a loss of privilege. We attached special importance to the deadlines for the committee to vote and the Congress ultimately to act.

And so, I would like to inquire whether the Republican leader agrees with that assessment.

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I agree with the majority leader. We did attach special importance to the deadlines for the committee to vote and the Congress ultimately to act. And we did not intend for failure to meet other deadlines in the title to cause the joint committee bill to lose its privilege.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with my colleague the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, who worked with me as we drafted the joint committee language in this bill.

The compromise we are voting on today on the debt limit establishes the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to build on the more than $900 billion in up-front deficit reduction in the bill. The joint committee would work to achieve another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, for a total of $2.4 trillion. This important joint committee will be bicameral and bipartisan, with three members selected by each of the four congressional leaders, for a total of 12 members, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. Importantly, their recommendations will be guaranteed an up-or-down vote on the floor of both the Senate and the House.

For this historic process to work, we felt it important that the joint committee be given maximum flexibility, with everything on the table–discretionary spending, entitlements and other mandatory spending, and tax reform. To accomplish this goal, the joint committee should similarly be given maximum flexibility in how it analyzes its work and how it determines that it has met the target of $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction.

Mr. President, over the past year, we have had three distinguished bipartisan groups provide us with comprehensive deficit reduction packages. We had the President’s Fiscal Commission, led by former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson. We had the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, led by former Senator Pete Domenici and former CBO and OMB Director Alice Rivlin. And we just had the so-called Group of 6, a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senator Conrad, and Senators Warner, Chambliss, Durbin, Crapo, and Coburn. All three of these groups decided that given the comprehensive and complex nature of the work that they were doing, they needed to take advantage of the flexibility to measure the effects of their proposals against the most accurate benchmark possible. I believe that it is critical that the joint committee have the same flexibility to decide on and use the most appropriate baseline possible for its work.

I believe that the legislation that we will vote on today accomplishes that, most directly by mandating the joint committee to include a statement of deficit reduction as part of the legislation it must vote on. There are no conditions on that statement. But, obviously, the legislation will need to have bipartisan support to pass the House and Senate.

I wonder if the chairman of the Budget Committee would agree with my conclusion.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think it is absolutely correct that the flexibility exists for the Joint Committee to determine the benchmark it wishes to use and that such flexibility is entirely appropriate given the circumstances.

The leader mentioned three bipartisan groups that came to a similar conclusion. I was a member of two of those groups, the President’s Fiscal Commission and the so-called Group of 6. We devoted considerable time to considering the most appropriate baseline to use in our deliberations given our goals. In both cases, on a bipartisan basis, we decided what made the most sense was not a standard current law baseline, as CBO normally uses for the work we do around here, but a baseline that was adjusted for more realistic policies, such as more realistic war costs, more realistic tax policies, and more realistic health spending given the need to regularly provide the so-called doc fix. I can tell the leader that having that flexibility was critical to both groups reaching completion of its work. The joint committee should have that same flexibility, and I believe the bill provides it.

Mr. REID. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is the Senate’s expert on such matters.

______

I think we can be confident that Kent Conrad is going to be one of Harry Reid’s three selections to the SuperPower Committee – if for no other reason, than as reward for Chairman Conrad’s inexcusable blockade of the Senate Budget Committee’s legally-mandated budget work this year; a public, democratic legislative process that was clearly abandoned at the behest of Reid and Obama, no doubt demonstrating to them that Conrad will likewise play the obedient yes-man to their upcoming efforts to privately influence the committee’s product.

See, too, this very good round-up by Paul Blumenthal at HuffingtonPost focusing on the Budget Control Act’s omission of any requirements that the Joint Select Committee do the bulk of its work in public (something that could change at its first meeting, if its Co-Chairs recommend rules that would keep the committee from operating in secrecy):

“This is the same as the whole debt debate,” [John] Wonderlich [policy director of the Sunlight Foundation] said. “The power struggle trumps process entirely. The committee is designed for power, not for transparency and accountability.”

Tim Williams argues, with some validation, that even if Obama never promised change “tomorrow,” or “next week,” that when you declare…

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

… that you’re not emphasizing that it will take years and years of slow progress and setbacks and long periods of stagnation before anyone sees any change.

At the very least, referring to “the moment” indicates that his election and inauguration would be the turning point in a process of improvement. But since then, unemployment has only climbed, the number of uninsured Americans and the number of citizens havign trouble affording health insurance climbed; Al Gore says Obama has failed to lead on his favorite issue of global warming; there are 46,000 troops remaining in Iraq, and “U.S. favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran’s favorable ratings (except in Saudi Arabia).”

By every standard Obama listed in that famous speech, the United States is either stagnant or worse off than in 2008.

After all the pleading and partisan accusations over funding the Federal Aviation Administration, Democratic lawmakers and Obama officials found the answer to ending a two-week shutdown of the agency literally right under their noses.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is sending a letter Thursday, saying a bill that the GOP-led House passed extending the FAA’s operating authority through mid-September gives him the power to waive a provision Democrats opposed that cuts $16.5 million in air service subsidies to rural communities.

snip This did not stop Harry Reid from claiming that a bipartisan deal was brokered:
“I am pleased to announce that we have been able to broker a bipartisan compromise between the House and the Senate to put 74,000 transportation and construction workers back to work,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement Thursday without specifying the details.
snip However the compromise reached Thursday is just between Senate Democrats and the White House since the House already passed their bill, a House source with knowledge of the details told Fox News.

Further regarding the FAA boondoggle, if you will recall, President Obama used the air waves to criticize Boehner (of the House of Representatives, DUH) for leaving town without finishing the FAA authorization.

Hillary, I’m sorry for not listening to you back in 2008. But perhaps you’ll give me another chance. Resign as secretary of state, and run against Obama in 2012. I will work my heart out for you. And I bet that millions of other angry Democrats will be with me.

Christopher Sprigman is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

Oh up yours Sprigman. NOW you want Hillary to come in and clean up the mess you and your obot friends crammed down our throats? May you rot in hell, you entitled little idiotic gullible fool. I hope you never never vote again.

I guess I am getting a little tire of the news meadia always competing for who has the best story. Good Morning America is at the Stock Market right now, EAGER to watch the fall.

To Bad they don’t understand they are in a very big way a reason for that Fall. I wonder what they would say if a bunch of angry American’s would get in their face and say, this is your mess. You not only did not vett him, you protected him. Now you want to be the first to watch the fall, and you don’t even understand that we caused it to a large extent.

Sprigman does not deserve tenure at the UV School of Law and he needs to apologize to those who supported Hillary during the Democratic primaries for working with Obama’s thugs to steal the nomination away from her.

While we still await for BLS.gov to finally come back up online half an hour after printing the actual NFP number, here is the one data point that we know for a fact: the labor force participation rate, and the reason why the general unemployment rate declined to 9.1%, …

They are cooking the figures and the books again. HAY MEDIA, instead of sitting with your fat butts at the Stock Market, maybe you should be verifying the figures. Is investigating reporting too much to ask of you with your 6 to 7 figure salaries, and bonuses?

During a whirlwind tour of Africa, Secretary of State Clinton tells us about her dreams for women and girls—and what she’ll do next. (Get a little sleep, perhaps?)

by Lauren Iannotti

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is dancing. Standing in a large tent in Lusaka, Zambia, surrounded by about 100 singing women, she starts to smile and clap and—yep, there it is—bop from side to side. She’s here to address members of the African Women’s Entrepreneurship Program (AWEP), which she cofounded last year to help small-business owners take their brands international. But whenever she tries to speak, the crowd breaks into song. And what you realize is that, in her sky blue jacket and black pants, her wheat-blond hair blown out in a flip, Madame Secretary’s got moves.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (yes, the Rodham’s back, in case you haven’t heard) is the most-traveled U.S. secretary of state ever—more than Condi, more than Kissinger—having, at press time, visited 85 countries and logged 582,002 miles in her two and a half years on the job. I joined her fast-paced trip to the Middle East and Africa this June, covering four countries in six days. Her mission: to further U.S. interests abroad, encourage democracy and development and, as always, to sound the alarm for equal rights for women.

“No country can thrive when half of its people are left behind,” Secretary Clinton says repeatedly during the trip. “If you don’t see all citizens get the rights and freedoms they deserve, you are on the wrong side of history.” Melanne Verveer, U.S. ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, believes the secretary’s emphasis makes good policy sense: “To the extent that women are fully participating in decision-making in postconflict societies, the world is stronger, the peace agreements last and there is every possibility that progress can be made.” Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and foreign policy guru, says his boss’s priorities are about good diplomacy and good karma. “There’s an economic dimension to it and a security dimension to it. And then there’s just the belief that this is right. That for too long women have been subjugated, abused, marginalized,” he says. “That moral dimension is something that rests at the core of who she is.”

Secretary Clinton is accustomed to being the only woman at the table, playing hardball with leaders from places where women aren’t even able to, say, drive or vote, let alone negotiate a trade agreement. “She can be the toughest guy in the room,” says Sullivan. Except she’s still very much a woman, in trim suits and kitten heels, even when trudging through the Tanzanian bush.

By any measure, Secretary Clinton has done a lot for women, and it’s not just the leading-by-example stuff (the first First Lady to actively shape policy, the first sitting First Lady to be elected to national office, the first serious female contender for president). It’s that she’s prioritized female issues throughout her career. In a game-changing speech at a U.N. conference in Beijing in 1995, she famously equated women’s rights with human rights. In 1997 she worked with then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to create the Vital Voices Democracy Initiative to support female leaders around the globe. Most Americans seem to have forgotten how polarizing she once was: In June her favorability rating hit 61 percent; last year she was Gallup’s “Most Admired Woman in America” for the ninth year running.

And now that she’s an appointee, outside the dirty scrum of politics, Secretary Clinton can be herself, a balance of unapologetic bluntness and canny charm. When we sit down to talk in her suite at the Palace Hotel in Dubai, she greets me with that big Hillary perma-smile, ready to answer questions from you, Glamour readers. We talked about female presidents, young women’s challenges and what she’ll do when she leaves D.C.

GLAMOUR: You’ve talked a lot during this trip about women and children. Beyond the fact that you are a woman and a mother, why the emphasis?

SECRETARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Some people are attracted to working on behalf of the elderly or people with disabilities or diseases. For me it’s been kids…. And it’s difficult to talk about helping kids if you don’t talk about helping their mothers.

GLAMOUR: But is that a bit First Lady-ish? Could championing safer cooking stoves for African women make you seem soft?

SECRETARY CLINTON: One thing I’ve never been called is soft, so I don’t really worry about that. [Laughs.] I believe in being as authentic as possible, and this is how I see the world…. I’m convinced that women’s rights are the unfinished business of the twenty-first century. Who are the people in the world most denied their rights to life and livelihood? Women and girls. Look at gendercide in countries like China, where they kill female babies at a horrifying rate. Look at rape as a tool of war against women in conflicts, particularly in Africa.

GLAMOUR: How do you manage not to feel overwhelmed by all of this suffering?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Because for every story of tragedy there are 10 stories of courage and inspiration. When I was First Lady, I went to a squatters encampment outside of Cape Town and met a group of women who were on their own, with children. They had taken over this piece of property and were building a village. The next year I went back, and they had built more houses. Then two years ago they had completed the village and gotten property for a second. These women could run General Motors, and probably pretty well! They were determined to make a better life for themselves and their children. Everywhere in the world, I see women who refuse to be cowed by what is expected of them.

GLAMOUR: You probably have to walk into a lot of rooms full of sexist guys. How do you work with leaders like that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You just have to figure out what you’re trying to accomplish. I often try, in private discussions with leaders, to press them on women’s rights. For the first few years, I kept a running tally of how many women were in meetings with me. It was always fascinating, who would bring women and what roles they would have. And who never showed up with women at all…. It’s wonderful to go to a country like Brazil, which elected a woman president [last year]. I made a big effort to go to her inauguration, because I know how hard it is for a woman to be elected.

I think my political background has been a very big advantage in my job—I understand the pressures of politics on leaders…. Sometimes I push them to do more than they think is possible. But not impossible. So I’ve told leaders, “Look, I was in politics. I’ve won elections and lost elections. And it’s not the end of the world…. Do what’s best for your country, and you will be remembered well.”

GLAMOUR: You’ve said you plan to step down in 2013, even if President Obama is reelected. Glamour reader Jan Gibson of Bethesda, Maryland, writes, “I’d like to know what Hillary is planning to do after her stint at the State Department.”

SECRETARY CLINTON: So would Hillary! I haven’t started thinking about that. I will probably rest up, because I’ve had 20 years with no break.

GLAMOUR: I’m exhausted after one week!

SECRETARY CLINTON: I know! And I get photographed all the time and have to stay awake. Sometimes I’ll be up onstage, and I’ll look out at everybody who’s traveling with me, and they’re passed out.

GLAMOUR: So it wasn’t just me, then?

SECRETARY CLINTON: [Laughs.] A lot of my friends who’ve stepped down after these kinds of stints have said, “You don’t know how tired you are until you stop long enough to let go.” I’m looking forward to an active involvement in women and children and questions of democracy and economic opportunity. But for now I want to stay focused on what I’m doing, and I’m going to work until the last minute. I think there’s more than enough to be done.

GLAMOUR: Do you worry that your next step won’t be as fulfilling as this one?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don’t. Somebody asked me, “So you’ve been First Lady of a state, of a country. You’ve been a senator from New York, you were elected two times, you ran for president, you’re secretary of state. What do you like best?” They were such different experiences. And how fortunate could I be that I’ve had this kind of range of opportunities? Sometimes a young girl will ask me, “What did you do to get to where you are?” And I say, “Well, you know, I never planned it.” If you had asked me 40 years ago, “Are you going to be married to a president? Are you going to be a senator from New York? Are you going to be a secretary of state?” I would have looked at you like you had two heads. You have to prepare yourself for whatever might come your way. And then you have to take a leap of faith, and see if it fits with who you are.

GLAMOUR: Reader Brittany Buhler of Evanston, Illinois, wants to know: “What challenges have you faced in politics? Has it been harder because you’re a woman?”

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m not going to mislead anybody. Politics is really hard. And it is harder for women. There’s a double standard, and you can’t complain about it. You just have to accept it, and be smart enough to navigate it. And you have to have a pretty tough skin. To paraphrase a favorite quote from Eleanor Roosevelt: If a woman wants to be in politics, she has to have the skin of a rhinoceros. Most men who go into politics just think they’re great. They believe they can do anything. Most young women, not only in politics but in most areas, are more cautious and more likely to say, “Could I really do this? Am I good enough?” I was talking to a friend and very successful businessman the other day, and he said, “The thing that still annoys me more than anything is that I see all these young women who are so much more capable than they allow themselves to believe. And I see so many young men who are so much less capable but who believe they are God’s gift to the world.” I would just say to women: Try it! Put your foot in the pond and see if you want to swim.

GLAMOUR: After years of taking a lot of hits from the press and the public, you’re now at a peak in popularity. How does it feel?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I’m grateful for that. A lot of my friends are so pleased. One said, “I’m so glad people are seeing you the way we’ve always seen you.” And I am too. Because I want to get out of the caricature that too many people have put me in.

GLAMOUR: What do you hope to leave behind as your legacy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to have helped both restore and continue America’s leadership and influence in the world, for human rights and human dignity, for democracy and freedom, for economic opportunity, and for women to have the same rights that men in their societies do.

GLAMOUR: You’ve spent a lot of time on the road in pursuit of those goals. You’re the most traveled secretary of state.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I am. Somebody will come along and beat the record. And God bless them.

I was asked on a radio show in Ireland yesterday was there any way I could see Hillary Clinton running for president in 2012.

No, I said, with one small exception.

That is a 1968 scenario where a deeply unpopular president, Lyndon Johnston was forced out of the race after a complete outsider, Senator Gene McCarthy,ran him close in the New Hampshire primary, 49 per cent to 42 per cent.

Soon after, Johnston, wearied from the Vietnam War debacle, announced he was not running,

Hillary is not Gene McCarthy in that scenario, rather she is Bobby Kennedy, who tragically, saw the McCarthy opening as an opportunity for him to jump in, a quest that ended tragically with his murder in California later that year.

If the economy continues to tank and Obama continues to roll over for Republicans then a McCarthy scenario becomes more likely.

Last week’s crisis revealed Obama as a show horse rather than a workhorse,searching only for a deal to mollify the Republican right.

He did not stand up and fight for the people who elected him who will now be hit with the trillions in cutbacks.

As a result there is now a profound unease about him in Democratic party circles

Thus,a New Hampshire opponent is not as unlikely as it might have been a few weeks ago.

There is an obvious McCarthy-type person, Vermont independent senator Bernie Sanders from a neighboring state who has been deeply critical of what Obama has been doing.

He’d have to change his affiliation and there is certainly no guarantee that he would fare anything like as well as McCarthy did.

But with the economy tanking by the day and Obama seemingly in professorial mode listening only to the Harvard clique surrounding him it is not impossible.

He seems deaf to those who elected him, and they may take a measure of revenge.

“Plus 117k jobs just helped his re-election chances immensely:(”
*******
This is closer to reality for the working class:

“According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics breakdown, there were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before. That’s actually a drop of 2.7 percent.

But the job creation number was positive and the unemployment rate went down, right? So how does that work?

It’s a product of something the government calls “discouraged workers,” or those who were unemployed but not out looking for work during the reporting period. ”
****
It’s a product of something the government calls “discouraged workers,” or those who were unemployed but not out looking for work during the reporting period.

This is where the numbers showed a really big spike—up from 982,000 to 1.119 million, a difference of 137,000 or a 14 percent increase. These folks are generally not included in the government’s various job measures.
**
And the so-called “real” unemployment rate, which adds in discouraged workers and others not counted as part of the headline unemployment rate, actually pulled back one notch to 16.1 percent.

Even this pessimistic analysis doesn’t include the roughly 150,000 new workers that enter the job market each month. So 137,000 workers stopped looking for work last month and 150,000 new jobs needed to be created to keep up with population increase so…da..da for the month of July there was a job deficit of 287,000 jobs. Way to go Bambi!!

mop: what is this, 5th time this week [on TV]
—————
But we did not see him yesterday, the day of the huge nosedive, did we? In addition to admin’s comment containing what Jake Tapper tried to find out about the O’s activities yesterday, there is this:

WASHINGTON–President Obama celebrated his 50th birthday Thursday night with a celebrity-filled bash, as entertainer Chris Rock reported on his Twitter feed: “Just left the Presidents birthday party at the White House. Herbie Hancock played, Stevie Wonder sang and yes they did the electric slide. A great night.” Daughter Malia, 13 just arrived home from summer camp in time for the Rose Garden party as she was joined by her sister, Sasha, 10, First Lady Michelle, grandmother Marian Robinson and their godmother, Eleanor “Mama Kaye, Wilson,” who flew to Washington from Chicago on Air Force One with Obama when he returned from his Thursday fund-raiser back home.

Obama’s party–paid for, the White House said, by the First Couple–was closed press and not on his official schedule. Obama’s team was not eager for pictures of the bash, coming as the stock market was plunging and a new jobless report comes out Friday morning.

Eddie Gehman Kohan, who presides over Obama Foodorama, the website of record about entertaining in the Obama White House, put together a detailed report about the five-hour barbeque, based on interviews of people who were there. Read her entire article here. From Kohan’s article: “Stevie Wonder gave a “surprise” performance during the celebration; his hit “You and I” was the President and First Lady Obama’s wedding song. Revelers included Jay Z; Tom Hanks; Chris Rock; hoops legends Charles Barkley and Grant Hill; Whoopi Goldberg; Dallas Cowboys Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith; and actor Hill Harper. He’s one of the President’s closest chums from Harvard law school, and star of CSI: NY. Jazz great Herbie Hancock and his ensemble played; R & B singer Ledisi dazzled the crowd. “The night was balmy, and when dinner was done, a DJ spun dance tunes–“like at a Bar Mitzvah,” said one guest. The twenty tables for ten in the Rose Garden were pushed aside so guests could dance, led by the President and Mrs. Obama. “…Also on hand to mark the Presidential milestone were former governors Bill Richardson and Tim Kaine, and Mr. Obama’s staunchest allies in the debt battle–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Senior White House staff also celebrated: Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Cecelia Munoz, John Brennan, and Valerie Jarrett. Mrs. Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Susan Sher, flew in from Chicago, as did two of the President’s closest pals: Dr. Eric Whitaker, University of Chicago Hospital Vice-President, and The Parking Spot President and CEO Marty Nesbitt. Campaign fundraiser Andy Spahn was spotted, too.”http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/08/obamas_rose_garden_50th_birthd_1.html

It has been three decades since the United States suffered a recession that followed on the heels of the previous one. But it could be happening again. The unrelenting negative economic news of the past two weeks has painted a picture of a United States economy that fell further and recovered less than we had thought.

Subtracting one or two points from those figures would most likely be more accurate. Especially with the Liar-In-Chief in office. He can’t handle the Truth.. and for sure, doesn’t want us to know the Truth!

So, the Jobs venue is still in crisis mode and he isn’t doing anything about except thinking about throwing money at people in hopes they forget about it long enough to vote for him….

Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate and perennial third-party presidential candidate, announced last month that he would work to find a Democrat to challenge President Barack Obama in 2012.

Nader now says that a primary challenge is a near certainty.

“What [Obama] did this week is just going to energize that effort,” Nader promised in an interview with The Daily Caller. “I would guess that the chances of there being a challenge to Obama in the primary are almost 100 percent.”

The only question, he said, is the stature of that opponent and whether it will be either “an ex-senator or an ex-governor” or “an intellectual leader or an environmental leader.”

In approximately a week and a half there will be “another chapter of this effort,” Nader predicted.

Chris Christie slams fearmongering over Sharia law
New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie defended his decision to nominate a Muslim judge to the state Superior Court against conservative critics who warned that the new judge will implement Sharia law. The notoriously blunt-spoken Christie calling their fears “crap” and “crazy.”

The appointee, Sohail Mohammed, is an American attorney who offered legal aid to New Jersey residents who were suspected after the 9/11 terrorist attacks but were later found innocent of any crimes.

Opponents of Mohammed’s nomination have issued warnings, with no evidence, that Christie’s nominee, if approved, would base his rulings on Islamic law. Christie was having none of it.
“Sharia law has nothing to do with this at all. It’s crazy. It’s crazy,” Christie said at a press conference Wednesday. “The guy’s an American citizen who has been an admitted lawyer to practice in the state of New Jersey, swearing an oath to uphold the laws of New Jersey, the constitution of the state of New Jersey, and the Constitution of the United States of America . . . .This Sharia law business is crap. It’s just crazy. And I’m tired of dealing with the crazies.”

The joke is partly true- A (homeless man w/knapsack) hurled himself over the fence on Monday, I believe. Conan’s writers pretty clever turning it around into a laugh on BO delivered via Conan’s dry wit.

White House claims Obama’s bus tour is presidential, so taxpayers will fund it

August 5, 2011

Somehow, from somewhere, a bright political strategist on the president’s reelection team has come up with the idea of sending Obama out in a bus on Midwestern roads in two weeks, just like real Americans, or real Americans who can still afford a short summer road trip.

The spectacle of a passing politician’s bus and waving citizens provides grand visuals for TV during the usually slow summer news days. The president of the United States might even happen upon a curbside lemonade stand operated by surprised children who deserve the kind of future he has in mind for all Americans. And more of that.

Not so good visuals of the trailing motorcade of press buses, Secret Service SUVs, SWAT team vans and communications cars. Nor the angry motorists stalled nearby because the highway and every on- and off-ramp has been closed by uniformed motorcyclists wearing large guns.

But a presidential bus tour could help refresh the image of this poll-plagued Democrat a year before his renomination for POTUS.

For weeks now Obama’s only been seen at a pompous lectern lecturing members of Congress about the need to raise the national debt limit so he can make new “investments” in America’s future and avoid default.

Or he’s been seen reminiscing about the good old disastrous days of 2008 with Windy City poobahs who dropped $35,800 each to say they had dinner with the president.

Or Obama could not be seen in closed-door meetings with union leaders, who really liked the $787 billion stimulus plan but don’t like any of this spending cut talk. As one result, Obama’s job approval has never been lower.

So, on Aug. 15-17 he’ll set out from somewhere and go somewhere else in a bus. You wouldn’t announce your itinerary until the last minute either if you had Republicans itching to buy critical billboards along the route. And compute how few miles per gallon your big bus gets.

Political road tours do have other dangers. Remember Democrat John Edwards’ bus breaking down on an icy Iowa roadside in early 2008, providing an irresistible media metaphor for his campaign on life-support?

So, where’s the commander-in-chief going? Politically, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan make strong sense. Yes, they’re all run by Republicans now after last November’s Democratic debacle. But Obama’s got to retake at least two of them if he hopes to keep putting his feet up on that Oval Office desk.

However, according to Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney, the 72-hour bus trip is not political. (Laughter) No, really. Carney told doubting reporters this week, “The air of cynicism is quite thick. The idea that the president of the United States should not venture forth into the country is ridiculous.”

Carney was fed such lines during his reporting days. But he persevered with the president’s pitch: “It is absolutely important for the president, whoever that person is, in the past and in the future, to get out and hear from the people in different communities.” Scroll down to watch Carney attempt to make that case on video.

The main trip topics will be the economy and jobs, he said. And no one would suspect the topics have anything to do with more discouraging employment figures expected out this morning.

Anyway, because the bus trip is so clearly presidential, America’s taxpayers will be footing the bill for the non-political, three-day Obama odyssey through politically important Midwestern battleground states.

After all, taxpayers covered all the costs of Sarah Palin’s successful One Nation bus tour back in June. Oh, wait. No, they didn’t. Her political action committee paid for that.

“TRUMP: I don’t think so. I think the Republicans tried hard, but they didn’t make a good deal. They did very little cutting, but the worst thing of all — and they could have had, and it was the one thing Obama wanted — he wanted to bring it past the election because if they had this come due again before the election, he could not have been re-elected. And why they agreed to that, I have no idea.”
______________________________

The Republicans forced Obama into a corner. They got everything they wanted because Obama traded in that little “chip” (no budget discussion before the 12 election) for the good he could have done for Americans. Like getting rid of the Bush Tax cuts.

Obama was able to exact revenge on critics for their Obama criticism because they were far and few between. But now the scales of popular support have reversed themselves and he is on the receiving end of karmic/comic payback. heh!

Most of us don’t go backwards here and think along with people we’ve known as enemies like Olberman. It kind of defies the rules of logic to agree with someone just because forced attrition has taught him a lesson and now he agree with our thinking. You can never trust people who are less than sincere.

They’ve lost their homes and jobs but they will be taught how to sort trash and composting? How does dedicating $7million square with living in airport hangers and under bridges?
______________________

DOD, DHS Among Agencies Dedicated To Environmental Justice

by Judicial Watch, Inc. August 5, 2011

Though it is unrelated to their mission, the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Housing are among the federal agencies that will focus on helping minorities get green under an Obama Administration plan that aims to bring “environmental justice” to poor and under served communities nationwide.

The effort was launched by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last fall and the agency has doled out millions of dollars in “environmental justice grants” to dozens of leftwing groups, including some dedicated to helping illegal immigrants. Earlier this year the administration dedicated an additional $7 million to study how pollution, stress and social factors affect “poor and under served communities.”

The goal is to help low-income populations obtain the same degree of protection from health and environmental hazards as wealthy communities. The organizations that receive U.S. tax dollars reportedly teach black, Latino and indigenous folks how to recycle, reduce carbon emissions through “weatherization” and participate in “green jobs” training.

Greenwald sums up the Democratic leadership: “Three days ago, Democratic Rep. John Conyers, appearing at a meeting of the Out of Poverty caucus, said: ‘The Republicans — Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor — did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that.” (video here, at 1:30) […] How can the leader of the Democratic Party wage an all-out war on the ostensible core beliefs of the Party’s voters in this manner and expect not just to survive, but thrive politically? Democratic Party functionaries are not shy about saying exactly what they’re thinking in this regard…In other words: it makes no difference to us how much we stomp on liberals’ beliefs or how much they squawk, because we’ll just wave around enough pictures of Michele Bachmann and scare them into unconditional submission. That’s the Democratic Party’s core calculation: from “hope” in 2008 to a rank fear-mongering campaign in 2012. Will it work? The ones who will determine if it will are the intended victims of that tactic: angry, impotent liberals whom the White House expects will snap dutifully into line no matter what else happens (even, as seems likely, massive Social Security and Medicare cuts) between now and next November.”

Taibbi: “The Democrats aren’t failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there’s political hay to be made moving to the right. They’re doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I’ve said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television. For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco. […] We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn’t bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won’t be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?”

Of course, Obama already had a blueprint if he hadn’t wanted the debt ceiling to be “held hostage”: How Clinton foiled Republican extortion over the debt ceiling.

What could have caused our National Man of Mystery to attack the New Deal, drone-bomb six countries, hound whistleblowers, and insist that he is allowed to assassinate American citizens? Can’t imagine.

Stoller: “So why, if his Presidency has been such an unmitigated disaster, is he continuing to pursue this reckless course. My theory is that the key to the Obama administration’s political strategy is not compromise or incrementalism. It is, quite simply, fooling liberals. When you look at Obama’s governing role, he is clearly a servant of American oligarchs.

The organizations that receive U.S. tax dollars REPORTEDLY teach black, Latino and indigenous folks how to recycle, reduce carbon emissions through “weatherization” and participate in “green jobs” training.

The paper summarizing the results presented below was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres in 2005. A copy of the manuscript can be downloaded here (MS Word, ~4 MB) or here (PDF, ~17 MB).
Abstract
The goal of this study is to quantify the world?s wind power potential for the first time.

Pine Tree facility in the Tehachapi Mountains faces scrutiny over the deaths of at least six golden eagles, which are protected under federal law. Prosecution would be a major blow to the booming industry.

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and others are putting together so-called “infrastructure funds” in order to buy public assets on the cheap. Or as Goldman’s 2010 SEC filing says, it wants to sell ownership and operation of public services, such as airports, toll roads and shipping ports, as well as power generation facilities, physical commodities and other commodities infrastructure components, both within and outside the United States.

Goldman Sachs is leading the charge. Now you see [wealthy investors] coming in because literally it is a “No-Lose” situation since you’re buying publicly owned income-producing assets for about 30 cents on the dollar. Not only that but they are also receiving pass-through K-1 depreciation, not based on 30 cents on the dollar, but on 100 cents on the dollar. Then to make it even sweeter, when you buy these assets, you’re receiving some sort of government guarantee as to future revenues.

The sale of income-producing public assets is nothing new, but to do it in such a large-scale organized fashion and to actually collude with investment banks and allow [wealthy investors] to invest in these funds, which are actually master limited partnerships, is new. It is collusion at an unprecedented level, the aim of this collusion being the transfer of public wealth.”

Then there is the question of the sale of nation-state assets. In Greece for example, the Greek telecommunication provider and the national postal bank are being sold to private investors. Again we see Goldman Sachs at the forefront, since they have already formed several multi-billion dollar international asset funds, which again are organized as master limited partnerships, which they have to be in order to get the pass-back tax advantage to [the wealthy investors]. JPMorgan Stanley is also leading in the formation of capital pools to purchase state assets of foreign governments which are being sold for a pittance, meaning the Euro peripheral states like Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are all doing the same thing.

The peripheral state governments of the Euro Zone are not only ceding ownership of the assets by selling them, they are also guaranteeing that they will never take them back in renationalization or any other process. They are also ceding jurisdictional control of the asset. They’re saying that if you buy the Irish waterworks deal which is currently getting sold for about 7-8 billions Euros in a Goldman Sachs package deal, not only does the partnership own all the assets including the pipelines and physical plants, but Goldman Sachs then becomes what’s called the defacto offshore operating manager for the benefit of domestic (American) debtors in possession.
Goldman Sachs then forms a separate management division, which it has done in Europe in order to manage these assets, because the selling governments have ceded regulatory operations and control. This then produces [wealthy investor] controlled fiefdoms in other countries which are free to set any prices for the goods and services that are being sold, like water, electricity, gas.

When a Goldman Sachs partnership purchases a series of toll roads in the state of Pennsylvania or anywhere else, it has the ability to raise those tolls to whatever it wants.

It should be remembered that when Goldman was negotiating with the State of Pennsylvania, they were actually on both sides — as an advisor to the State as well as the purchaser, i.e. [wealthy investors]. These deals give Goldman all kinds of fees – upfront loads, management fees, assessment fees, etc. They then use that money to purchase a series of toll roads in the state of Pennsylvania, wherein they Goldman Sachs are also advisors to the State of Pennsylvania in the sale. Meanwhile the pay grades of the state employees are now under control of Goldman Sachs.

They then tell the state that their intent is to double the toll on these roads which they now own. They also get to use state law enforcement to enforce the payment of these tolls. Part of these deals is the non-compete agreement in which the state agrees not to build any competing roads to the recently sold toll road.

Not only is this a privatization, but it’s also a monopolization of public assets that is being enforced by the selling government because now if you try to evade the toll which used to be $5 and was then raised to $10, you’ll be arrested by the Pennsylvania State Police and issued a $150 ticket. In what’s called a split fee arrangement, the state of Pennsylvania gets to keep $75 and $75 is retained by Goldman Sachs asset management group.

Behind those big sunglasses, Anna Wintour only has eyes for Obama when it comes to presidential politics.

The Vogue editor-in-chief is co-hosting a fundraising dinner with HBO exec Harvey Weinstein for the president next week in New York. The “high-powered, intimate” dinner and discussion costs $71,600-a-couple and will take place at Weinstein’s home in the West Village, according to Page Six. Some notables expected to attend: Gwyneth Paltrow, Chris Martin, Lyor Cohen, Tory Burch, Alicia Keys and Quentin Tarantino.

In which the author of the historical event disproves Obama’s accounting of the how the dinner evolved… Again, Jefferson’s debt philosophy comes into play that most certainly will never be used (or maybe will be, in a deliberately confusing revisionist incantation by Obama) with Obama’s handling of America’s infinite zeros of debt.
________________________

Thomas Jefferson Warned Us

By Andrew Cline 08.5.11

“At some point, isn’t it time to admit the system is broken?” So wrote Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein on Thursday. It was a phrase in widespread use for the past few weeks.

“Government is broken and it’s not going to be repaired by next Tuesday,” Bob Edgar​, head of Common Cause, said last week.

Something that is broken does not work as intended. It has been damaged by an outside force. The debt ceiling negotiations revealed many things, but never that the United States government is broken. On the contrary, the government worked exactly as designed.

The party in control of the White House and the Senate disagreed with the party in control of the House. The disagreement was resolved through prolonged negotiations that resulted in a compromise that the president and a majority in Congress could and did accept. Disagreements in Washington have been worked out in precisely that way for centuries, just as the Founders anticipated.

The U.S. government is not broken; it is dysfunctional. That is, it functions, but in an unhealthy way, a way that needs to be corrected. And that dysfunction was the direct cause of the debt-ceiling “crisis.”

Unlike most state governments, the federal government has no mechanism that prevents prolonged deficit spending. Congress and the president can spend more than the government takes in, forever, or at least until no one will lend to the government anymore.

Thomas Jefferson​ recognized this flaw immediately.

“No man is more ardently intent to see the public debt soon and sacredly paid off than I am,” he wrote to President Washington in 1792. “This exactly marks the difference between Colonel Hamilton’s views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid to-morrow; he wishes it never to be paid, but always to be a thing wherewith to corrupt and manage the Legislature.”

To Senator, and former House Speaker, Nathaniel Macon, Jefferson wrote in 1821, “There does not exist an engine so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad against whom this army and navy are to protect us.”

Jefferson thought a perpetual public debt was so injurious to liberty that he theorized a way of preventing one generation from passing a debt on to the next. In a letter to John Eppes in 1813, he wrote, “What is to hinder (the government) from creating a perpetual debt? The laws of nature, I answer.” Each generation would be limited to accumulating only the debt that it could pay off before it died, he theorized.

“Suppose that a majority, on the first day of the year 1794, had borrowed a sum of money equal to the fee-simple value of the State, and to have consumed it in eating, drinking and making merry in their day; or if you please, quarreling and fighting with their unoffending neighbors.”

If that generation tried to pass that debt to the next generation, “Every one will say no,” Jefferson wrote, “… the laws of nature impose no obligation on them to pay this debt. And although, like some other natural rights, this has not yet entered into any declaration of rights, it is no less a law, and ought to be acted on by honest governments.”

Jefferson’s theory notwithstanding, this “law” has yet to be acknowledged by our government, much less written into the Constitution or our statutes. With no restraint on the accumulation of long-term debt, Jefferson’s worst fears have been realized. Our politicians have figured out that they can benefit themselves by borrowing excessively and passing the bill to the next generation, which is exactly what they have done. The current debt is more than $14 trillion, or nearly $47,000 per U.S. citizen. Jefferson would be appalled.

That “perpetual debt,” as Jefferson called it — not the recent “crisis” caused by taking the debt ceiling seriously — is our government’s real dysfunction, and what must be fixed if we are to reclaim the liberty that comes, as Jefferson knew, from being freed of the “torment” of perpetual indebtedness.

Here is what needs to happen all across the USA, and soon, to free the people from debt to the transnational financiers:

The Grays Harbor Democratic Party passed a resolution in support of Glass-Steagall on Thursday, August 4th. This is the second County wide Democratic Party organization in Washington State to pass such a resolution. Grays Harbor covers the west-central region of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State, and includes such cities as Aberdeen, Ocean Shores, Montesano and Elma.

The full text of the resolution is as follows:
Resolution in Support of HR 1489

WHEREAS, an effective and stable banking system is essential to the functioning of our economy; and

WHEREAS, from 1933 to 1999, the Federal Banking Act, also known as Glass-Steagall, laws did protect the public interest by separating and regulating commercial banking, investment banking, insurance companies and securities firms; and

WHEREAS, the lack of such protection since 1999 has encouraged financial industry segments to exploit the financial system for their own gain, in violation of the public interest and to the severe detriment of the economy and general welfare; and

WHEREAS, on April 12, 2011, H.R. 4377 was reintroduced as H.R. 1489 Return to Prudent Banking Act stating, to repeal certain provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and revive the separation between commercial banking and the securities business in the manner provided by the Banking Act of 1933, the so-called Glass-Steagall Act, and for other purposes; and

WHEREAS, on April 12, 2011, Kansas District Federal Reserve Governor Thomas Hoenig recommended reclassifying government subsidized financial institutions as Government Sponsored Enterprises for the purpose of preventing them from engaging in activities not prescribed under Glass-Steagall standards; and

WHEREAS, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, issued January 2011, finds that our financial system is, in many respects, still unchanged from what existed on the eve of the crisis and the U.S. financial sector is now more concentrated than ever in the hands of a few large, systemically significant institutions.

NOW THEREFORE, Be it resolved by the Democratic Party of Grays Harbor County, Washington that:

The Democratic Party of Grays Harbor County urges the United States Congress, in order to prevent American taxpayers from having to bail-out financial institutions, to enact legislation to reinstate the Banking Act of 1933 laws to prohibit commercial banks and bank holding companies from investing in stocks, underwriting securities, investing in or acting as guarantors of derivatives transactions; and that the Democratic Party of Grays Harbor County shall transmit a copy of this Resolution to Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and to every member of the Washington State Congressional Delegation.

Resolution PASSED by the Grays Harbor County Democrats on Thursday, August 4, 2011.

I read the other day, because that exact question was brought up, ie : Is there finagling going on between “our” Treasury and Moody’s and the S&P? And is it or isn’t it unethical? (well, first of all I almost chocked when I read about the question of ethics. When did ethics ever enter into a discussion/decision by the BO administration?) My BAD!

It was answered somewhat as plausible deniability. And in the public interest that it would not be out of line for the Treasury to have advance notice of what both rating’s systems have decided before the decision is made public. So, if several days before the rating or downgrading had been decided that several day window of ‘advance notice’ is open to the Treasury and technically a veiled opportunity for discussion between the rating service and the Treasury changing the mind of the rating service for one way or the other.

Standard & Poor’s removed the United States government from its list of risk-free borrowers on Friday night, citing concern about the rising burden of long-term federal debt.

The ratings agency had threatened the downgrade if the government did not act to reduce the federal debt by at least $4 trillion over the next decade. Earlier this week, Congress instead passed a plan to reduce the debt by at least $2.1 trillion.

Two other ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch, both have said that they have no immediate plan to downgrade the country’s credit rating, giving the government more time to make progress on debt reduction. The split verdict limits the impact of the S.&P. downgrade as many consequences would only be triggered by a reduction by at least two agencies.

The thing of it is… Congress and Obama both knew the magic number to maintain a AAA+ rating was reducing the debt by $4 Trillion. Instead, they went with half of the needed debt reduction of $2.1 T knowing full well their decision could jeopardize the country’s rating thereby jeopardizing every American’s ability to pay their debts. This still could ostensibly create a hike in mortgage interest rates, personal loans rates, car loans, CC rates … This whole dance has been a choreographed ‘Dance of the Devil’ demanding further sacrifice and austerity foisted on the American people by a corrupt Congress and corrupt president’s self-interest. The final ‘straw that breaks the backs of Americans’.

Or just maybe, because some politicians (on both sides) threatened to cause default for political reasons….

Bull. This has nothing to do with raising the debt ceiling. S&P were saying in their reports all along that raising the debt ceiling to prevent default, while necessary, was not the chief concern. The chief concern was the debt itself. We HAVE to cut spending, and cut it big. The ratings agencies have said that repeatedly. The media just focused on the debt ceiling and ignored the rest of their reports.

We have no choice. We need a MINIMUM of 4 trillion in real cuts, not just “reductions in the growth of spending’. Everything so far is based off of “baseline budgeting. That means that what washington is calling “cuts” are NOT cuts. It’s “We planned to spend 40% more than we do now over the next 4 years, But we’ll agree to only only spend 30% more, so that’s a 10% cut in spending. No, it’s not. It’s a 30% INCREASE in spending, not a 10% cut.

And don’t tell me we can just raise taxes on the top 1% and be fine. If we confiscated ALL of the annual income of the entire top 1%, it would not begin to touch this debt.

Two weeks ago, Bill Clinton reviewed the 4000 page audit by the GAO official audit of spending. He underlined gimmes amounting to $2 Trillion that could be struck from spending, the American people wouldn’t even miss… (There’s the other half- and Obama didn’t use it!)

Yes, I know- Clinton is a whiz at stretching money and shrinking obligations over time. It really should be designated a crime for the way Obama has handled our financial affairs when there was a way out of this mess putting our finances on a sound footing. And he [Obama} didn’t take it

S&P were saying in their reports all along that raising the debt ceiling to prevent default, while necessary, was not the chief concern.

====================

Sure. The point is, that politicians (on both sides) THREATENED to have a default (or hold SS/VA) as part of political theatre — as an election ploy. Would you loan money to a country whose leaders talked like this?

Obama since he took office has enlarged government to the tune of hiring 200,000 new employees. Czars and Czarinas making above average workingmen’s salaries. I hope Bill hit those blood suckers with his red pen!

The July 2011 Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit of the Federal Reserve is the first installment of a larger audit to be completed by October of this year. It revealed a trail of criminal action on the part of Bernanke and Geithner.

In March 2008, Fed Chairman Bernanke fraudulently invoked an emergency clause in the Federal Reserve Act, claiming that on the basis of “unusual and exigent circumstances,” the Fed could issue emergency loans to nondepository institutions for the first time since the Great Depression. As the result, the Fed issued more than $16 trillion in emergency loans to Wall Street and foreign banks. Furthermore, most of the fraudulent “emergency lending” was outsourced to private contractors, led by JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, in no-bid contracts that totalled $660 million in fees.

Numerous officials of the Fed and the outside contractors were given blanket waivers, allowing them to act despite clear conflicts of interest. The Fed audit cited the case of William Dudley, a former chief economist of Goldman Sachs, who is now the Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, who was given a conflict-of-interest waiver to retain his stocks in AIG and General Electric at a time when he was authorizing hundreds of billions of dollars in fraudulent “emergency” loans to these firms.

In another example of the rampant conflict of interest, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase was allowed to remain on the board of directors of the New York Federal Reserve Bank while his firm received $390 billion in loans, and functioned as a major clearinghouse for the entire Federal Reserve emergency loan program.

The GAO audit was conducted under an amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill that was introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), over strenuous objections.

The U.S. Federal Reserve gave out $16.1 trillion in emergency loans to U.S. and foreign financial institutions between Dec. 1, 2007 and July 21, 2010, according to figures produced by the government’s first-ever audit of the central bank.

Last year, the gross domestic product of the entire U.S. economy was $14.5 trillion.

Of the $16.1 trillion loaned out, $3.08 trillion went to financial institutions in the U.K., Germany, Switzerland, France and Belgium, the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) analysis shows.

Additionally, asset swap arrangements were opened with banks in the U.K., Canada, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Norway, Mexico, Singapore and Switzerland. Twelve of those arrangements are still ongoing, having been extended through August 2012.

Out of all borrowers, Citigroup received the most financial assistance from the Fed, at $2.5 trillion. Morgan Stanley came in second with $2.04 trillion, followed by Merill Lynch at $1.9 trillion and Bank of America at $1.3 trillion.

The audit also found that the Fed mostly outsourced its lending operations to the very financial institutions which sparked the crisis to begin with, and that they delegated contracts largely on a no-bid basis. The GAO report recommends new policies that would eliminate such conflicts of interest, and suggests that in the future the Fed should keep better records of their emergency decision-making process.

The Fed agreed to “strongly consider” the recommendations, but as it is not a government-run institution it cannot be forced to do so by lawmakers. The seven-member board of governors and the Fed chairman are, however, appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.

The audit was […] mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed last year. Fed officials had strongly discouraged lawmakers from ordering the audit, claiming it may serve to undermine confidence in the monetary system.

For those of us that have felt the doom looming…it seems as if the black clouds are already overhead and the tailspin has started…

I never thought Baracko would be THIS TERRIBLE, bad…oh yes, but I at least thought some of his cabinet would keep him somewhat in check. Now, only Hillary is trying to mop up after him, especially with Gates gone.

I can’t imagine how much worse it will be when Hillary quits, if he steals a second term. This gloom will be like child’s play to what he will be like if he has another four years to gut our country.

“The audit was […] mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed last year.”
********
That was Bernie Sander’s amendment that forced the Fed to tell (with continued stalling) where they pissed away 16, probably 23 trillion dollars that we are responsible for. Last year, Bernanke basically told Sanders to go fuck himself when Bernie asked how much the Fed gave to foreign banks and corporations.

That’s the real joke about the debt ceiling hoo-haa. They fought over reducing a few trillion over ten years and the Fed gives 16-23 trillion to the crooks, including foreign crook who got us into this mess and with no oversight.

Obama should resign over this now, this is resignation material, he sat back and presided over an economic mess with ignorant policies that has seen the US downgraded for the first time in history, this one he cannot lay at anyone else’s feet. Now we know what he meant by Hope and Change….you hope you get change in your pocket.

The markets should fall through the floor on Monday morning.

So who will Bambi blame…..

1. Bush left us this horrible economy.

2. We wouldn’t be in this mess if the Bush tax cuts weren’t enacted.

3. The GOP refuses to raise taxes which is the only way to balance the budget and pay off the debt.

4. The stimulus wasn’t nearly large enough.

5. We need higher taxes on fossil fuels.

6. The Tea Party is a bunch of terrorists.

7. The GOP wants babies to starve and grandmas to get sick and die. They also want to poison everyone with dirty air and water.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement after Standard and Poor’s announced they had lowered the United States long-term credit rating to AA+.

“This decision by S&P is the latest consequence of the out-of-control spending that has taken place in Washington for decades. The spending binge has resulted in job-destroying economic uncertainty and now threatens to send destructive ripple effects across our credit markets.

“Republicans have listened to the voices of the American people and worked to bring the spending binge to a halt. We are no longer debating how much to spend, but rather how much to cut. Unfortunately, decades of reckless spending cannot be reversed immediately, especially when the Democrats who run Washington remain unwilling to make the tough choices required to put America on solid ground.

“The Administration and Democrats in Congress had sought an increase in the debt limit without any spending cuts or reforms. Republicans made clear the American people would not tolerate that and fought for the largest spending cuts possible. With the Budget Control Act, we made a positive first step toward reducing the debt, but much more must be done.

“In May, I warned, ‘if we don’t act boldly now, the markets will act for us very soon.’ It is my hope this wake-up call will convince Washington Democrats that they can no longer afford to tinker around the edges of our long-term debt problem. As S&P noted, reforming and preserving our entitlement programs is the ‘key to long-term fiscal sustainability.’

“Republicans remain committed to ensuring the United States always meets its obligations. Though we are outnumbered in Washington, we will continue to press Democrats to join us in taking meaningful steps to rein in our debt and deficits.”

I bet you last nights little performance speech where he said, he wanted to increase unemployments and a load of other giveaways finally convinced them to downgrade, its like, you have no money and you want to give away more.

Considering Obama officials are having a shitfit over this and threatening S&P is not going to make them ameniable to anything the Obama Admin says. His threats last night, saying they were wrong over estimated, facts wrong probably made S&P go, “well fuck you then”

The House Republicans hold the reins of Impeachment and are in on the scheme. Who do you call to remedy this predicament?

————

Typical Americans who are excluded from the political process, can’t find any real support or representation, save from a very few in Congress. It’s they who are being destroyed, being cut off from medical care, losing their businesses and jobs, losing their homes, losing their loved ones, their friends, their families, their colleagues, losing hope… Who did FDR call to? How do you suppose he or John F. Kennedy or Hillary would answer your question?

The real but hidden fact is that we have trillions in credit available to the United States. We want to use those trillions to save the states. Per the Constitution, the federal government issues credit and disperses it among the states. Restored, the states can pay it back and pay it forward, restoring the productive power and continuing development of our nation.

Here’s a strange hypothesis from Sirota, viewing Waffles as strong but ill-intentioned.

Obama isn’t weak (he just isn’t a liberal)

The president has the political muscle to enact a progressive agenda, but he doesn’t want to

By David Sirota

Barack Obama is a lot of things — eloquent, dissembling, conniving, intelligent and, above all, calm. But one thing he is not is weak.

This basic truth is belied by the meager Obama criticism you occasionally hear from liberal pundits and activists. They usually stipulate that the president genuinely wants to enact the progressive agenda he campaigned on, but they gently reprimand him for failing to muster the necessary personal mettle to achieve that goal. In this mythology, he is “President Pushover,” as the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently labeled him.

This story line is a logical fallacy. Most agree that today’s imperial presidency almost singularly determines the course of national politics. Additionally, most agree that Obama is a brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyer who understands how to wield political power.

Considering this, and further considering Obama’s early congressional majorities, it is silly to insist that the national political events during Obama’s term represent a lack of presidential strength or will. And it’s more than just silly — it’s a narcissistic form of wishful thinking coming primarily from liberals who desperately want to believe “their” president is with them.

Such apologism, of course, allows liberals to avoid the more painful truth that Obama is one of America’s strongest presidents ever and is achieving exactly what he wants.

Obama is not a flaccid Jimmy Carter, as some of his critics insist. He is instead a Franklin Delano Roosevelt — but a bizarro FDR. He has mustered the legislative strength of his New Deal predecessor — but he has channeled that strength into propping up the very forces of “organized money” that FDR once challenged.

On healthcare, for instance, Obama passed a Heritage Foundation-inspired bailout of the private health insurance industry, all while undermining other more-progressive proposals. On foreign policy, he escalated old wars and initiated new ones. On civil liberties, he not only continued the Patriot Act and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects but also claimed the right to assassinate American citizens without charge.

On financial issues, he fought off every serious proposal to reregulate banks following the economic meltdown; he preserved ongoing bank bailouts; and he resisted pressure to prosecute Wall Street thieves. On fiscal matters, after extending the Bush tax cuts at a time of massive deficits, he has used the debt ceiling negotiations to set the stage for potentially massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare — cuts that would be far bigger than any of his proposed revenue increases.

As hideous and destructive as it is, this record is anything but weak. It is, on the contrary, demonstrable proof of Obama’s impressive political muscle, especially because polls show he has achieved these goals despite the large majority of Americans who oppose them.

Importantly, though, Obama himself has not suffered from equally negative polling numbers. While his approval rating is not terrific, he is in decent shape for reelection — and, more significantly, he has suffered only a minimal erosion of Democratic support. He is relatively popular, in other words, despite advocating wildly unpopular policies. Thanks to that reality, every one of his stunning legislative triumphs now has the previously unprecedented imprimatur of rank-and-file Democratic support.

In forging such bipartisan complicity with what were once exclusively right-wing Republican objectives, Obama has achieved even more than what he fantasized about when he famously celebrated a previous bizarro FDR. In an illustrative 2008 interview with a Nevada newspaper, Obama lauded Ronald Reagan for “chang[ing] the trajectory of America” and “put[ting] us on a fundamentally different path.”

Reagan was a truly strong executive — but the Gipper was nothing compared to our current president.

Sirota is living in an alternate universe to have writtena super hero saga describing Obama as something other than a man addicted to scripted teleprompter speeches unable to answer questions qualitatively off the cuff in press briefings.

The only useful attribute here is that Obama qualifies as a news anchor, news reader reading news reports written by someone else. If Sirota is as delusional as he appears to be, he missed the boat to Hollywood where his rantings of a Black US president governing the Free World can be transformed into a fantasy production entitled “Dreams for America”

But then again, Americans have experienced the real thing. Movie executives fear any similarities to the current black president would be a financial loser and have scrapped Sirota’s screenplay indefinably earmarking it for a future episode of Star Treck, the 22nd century.

Click on the video link to see raw video of police and sheriff’s deputies investigating the scene.
Did you witness the attacks outside State Fair, or were you attacked? Were you hurt? E-mail us your story or cell phone video!
WEST ALLIS [Wisconsin] – Witnesses tell Newsradio 620 WTMJ and TODAY’S TMJ4 of a mob of young people attacking innocent fair-goers at the end of the opening night of State Fair, with some callers claiming a racially-charged scene. Milwaukee Police confirmed there were assaults outside the fair. Witnesses’ accounts claim everything from dozens to hundreds of young black people beating white people as they left State Fair Thursday night….http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/126825018.html

moononpluto
August 6th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Mrs Smith, looks like it was shot down by the Taliban.

Not good news, they are getting confident now in taking our guys out and our Pres does not give a F**k for anything but his campaign.
________________________

…. and with the consumate boiler plate remark… investigation to follow, I suppose. It would be interesting to know where the rocket propelled grenade was made and who sold it to them. I don’t think I have to say anymore about it if the grenade fragments have made in USA on them.

Amid all the yawping and heaving about how phony Barky really is there has been rather little truly thoughtful explication of why this is so and why it is so easily demonstrable. Here is a good one:

Obama’s Glamour Can’t Fix Charisma Deficit: Virginia Postrel

One thing is clear in the aftermath of the debt-limit debate: U.S. President Barack Obama has lost his glamour. The alluring icon of hope and change has become just another pol, derided by his supporters as well as his opponents. As one headline succinctly put it: “Obama succumbs to the ways of Washington.”
Most striking was how irrelevant the president seemed to the entire debate. Obama didn’t present his own alternative to the various congressional plans or make a case for a particular policy. When he tried to address the public, he came off as condescending, self-interested and detached. His pulpit proved anything but bully.
Contrary to some of the headlines, however, the crisis didn’t mark a dramatic shift in the president’s standing. Gradual disillusionment set in long before the debt-ceiling fight. Back in October, a Bloomberg National Poll asked people who had at some point been Obama supporters how they now felt about him. Forty-two percent said they were less enthusiastic than they’d once been, with 35 percent still supporting the president at least some of the time and 7 percent either no longer supportive or actively opposed to him.
That was 10 months ago. Since then, the president’s general approval ratings have been trending down, hitting a new low in Gallup’s survey last week. Although angry liberals are the loudest online voices, Obama’s real weakness, according to Gallup, comes from eroding support among moderates. Less than half of them now approve of the job he’s doing, compared with 59 percent in early June.
Lack of Enthusiasm
Obama may well win re-election — for that, he only has to convince voters that he’s the lesser of two evils — but the enthusiasm of his 2008 campaign has certainly vanished.
What happened? In 2008, after all, not just political pundits and regular folks were expecting big things of Obama. So were certified leadership gurus. Warren Bennis of the University of Southern California and Andy Zelleke of Harvard praised Obama for possessing “that magical quality known as charisma.”
This charisma, they predicted, would give Obama “the transformational capacity to lift the malaise that is paralyzing so many Americans today” because “a charismatic leader could break through the prevailing orthodoxy that the nation is permanently divided into red and blue states … and build a broader sense of community, with a compelling new vision.”
There was only one problem. Obama wasn’t charismatic. He was glamorous — powerfully, persuasively, seductively so. His glamour worked as well on Bennis and Zelleke as it did on voters.
What’s the difference? Charisma moves the audience to share a leader’s vision. Glamour, on the other hand, inspires the audience to project its own desires onto the leader (or movie star or tropical resort or new car): to see in the glamorous object a symbol of escape and transformation that makes the ideal feel attainable. The meaning of glamour, in other words, lies entirely in the audience’s mind.
That was certainly true of Obama as a candidate. He attracted supporters who not only disagreed with his stated positions but, what is much rarer, believed that he did, too. On issues such as same-sex marriage and free trade, the supporters projected their own views onto him and assumed he was just saying what other, less discerning voters wanted to hear.
Even well-informed observers couldn’t decide whether Obama was a full-blown leftist or a market-oriented centrist. “Barack has become a kind of human Rorschach test,” his friend Cassandra Butts told Rolling Stone early in the campaign. “People see in him what they want to see.”
Defying Convention
Like John Kennedy in 1960, Obama combined youth, vigor and good looks with a vague promise of political change. Like Kennedy, Obama was both charming and self-contained. Kennedy’s wealth set him apart, but Obama’s mystery stemmed from his exotic background — an upbringing and ethnicity that defied conventional categories and distanced him from humdrum American life. Obama was glamorous because he was different, and his differences mirrored his audience’s aspirations for the country.
He was the political equivalent of the seductive high heels described by Leora Tanenbaum in her book “Bad Shoes”: “When you see a pair of stilettos on display in a department store or featured in a fashion magazine, you can imagine yourself wearing them and becoming the kind of person who lives a magical life, gliding around gracefully with no need for sensible, lace-up shoes. The fantasy just might become realizable by stepping into the shoes and inhabiting them.”
That’s glamour.
Equally glamorous was candidate Obama’s call to “a broad majority of Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents of goodwill — who are re-engaged in the project of national renewal.” It was an invitation to the audience to entertain their own fantasies of what national renewal would look like. All voters had to do was slip on the right president.
Glamour is a beautiful illusion — the word “glamour” originally meant a literal magic spell — that makes the ideal seem effortlessly attainable. Glamour hides difficulty and distractions, creating a false and enticing sense of grace. We see the dance, not the rehearsals; the beach resort, not the luggage and jet lag. There are no bills on the kitchen counter, no freckles on the pale-skinned star, no sacrifices in the promise of change.
This illusion is hard to maintain for more than an escapist moment. Even the most beautiful shoes are never as glamorous once you’ve worn them and discovered they give you blisters or, at best, didn’t transform your life. The same is true of presidents. Familiarity breeds discontent.
Didn’t Emote Enough
Among the early signs of Obama’s dissipating glamour were the complaints that he didn’t emote enough over the BP oil spill — a surprising criticism of a man whom many supporters had praised for his Spock-like demeanor. But apparently not everyone saw Spock in candidate Obama. Some saw Bill Clinton. They expected the president to feel their pain.
Clinton, with his obvious appetites and open eagerness to please, was never glamorous — no distance or mystery for him. But Clinton was charismatic. He inspired intense loyalty, even from supporters who disagreed with him on specific policies or disapproved of his moral transgressions.
If you think of Barack Obama as a charismatic president, it is hard to explain why his supporters are so angry. He should be able to win them over. But if you understand his appeal as glamour, then his problems aren’t surprising.
With glamour, any specific action that stands outside the fantasy breaks the spell, alienating supporters who disagree. Even trying to remain above the fray, as Obama often does, infuriates those who want a fighter.
A well-established sales tool, glamour is a tremendous asset if you’re running for office. But once you have to govern, it’s a problem. Although charisma can continue to inspire, glamour is guaranteed to disillusion. The only thing surprising about Obama’s predicament is how few people expected it.

(Virginia Postrel is Bloomberg View columnist writing about commerce and culture, innovation, economics and public policy. She is the author of “The Future and Its Enemies” and “The Substance of Style,” and is writing a book on glamour. The opinions expressed are her own.)

Mrs. Smith: I can only conclude that the Sirota piece is tongue-in-cheek.
______________

Yes, thanks- I can only conclude Sirota is a victim of his own demons. Fear of commitment. His delusional story uses reference points of other journalists to claim a point then pours on his honeyed statements of Obama’s political muscle when everyone knows it is the people behind BO with the political muscle not him.

Carteresque and flaccid? No, a flaccid version of a black Carter would be more accurate. What they have in common is an encore of political muscle coming from same IMF tribesmen. Carter failed where Obama is succeeding in advancing their agenda much to our detriment.

stonesfan: well now we know where your money went. Oddly enough my stocks went up a few cents, now totaling $4.98.
_______________________

In Seven Trading Days, $4.5 Trillion Was Wiped Off The Value Of Equities Worldwide

In seven trading days from July 26, $4.5 trillion was wiped off the value of equities worldwide, according to the Telegraph.

Check again when markets open after the big US downgrade and that number could get higher.

What does this mean for the global recovery? For a bit of perspective we took a look at McKinsey’s new report on global capital markets. Published last week, the big headline was that global financial stock (equities plus debt) grew by $11 trillion in 2010, surpassing its 2007 level.

Subtract $4.5 trillion from that figure and it doesn’t look so good. Now many including Nouriel Roubini say a global double is likely.

McKinsey’s report can be downloaded as a 40-page PDF here, but we’ve pulled out the best charts for you.
Click here to see the state of global capital markets >

Now that the Golden Goose is cooked- what will Obama do now? Keep printing money? Ask Soros for a loan? Use taxpayer’s SS and Medi funds to cover his checks?
___________________________

China tells U.S. “good old days” of borrowing are over

China bluntly criticized the United States on Saturday one day after the superpower’s credit rating was downgraded, saying the “good old days” of borrowing were over. Standard & Poor’s cut the U.S. long-term credit rating from top-tier AAA by a notch to AA-plus on Friday over concerns about the nation’s budget deficits and climbing debt burden. China — the United States’ biggest creditor — said Washington only had itself to blame for its plight and called for a new stable global reserve currency. “The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days are over.

I’ve been saying this for months… no, years. The Chinese are already using the Euro, Yen, and even their own currency both as reserve and for trade. The Euro and Yen are nearly impregnable and China is buying stuff from Europe, Japan and even Korea that they couldn’t buy from the US even if they wanted to.

The $4 trillion president enjoys chips and dip during economic double dip

For his 50th birthday, President Obama danced barefoot in the Rose Garden with a group of friends on Thursday. The stock market had just closed at a two-year low, so the posh White House shindig was kept off the schedule. No photographers were allowed to capture images of celebrities and wealthy Democratic Party leaders living it up while the economy sinks just outside double-dip territory.

The gathered stars provided more than just entertainment and adulation for the commander in chief.

“Just left the president’s birthday party at the White House,” Chris Rock tweeted. “Herbie Hancock played, Stevie Wonder sang and yes they did the electric slide. A great night.” The comedian has given $20,400 to Mr. Obama and $28,500 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

Movie star Tom Hanks – who ponied up $57,000 to the DNC in the past two cycles and $9,200 to the Obama campaigns – came to the festivities with wife Rita Wilson, who also maxed out to the DNC and gave $5,350 to Mr. Obama.

Other hard-left luminaries included singer Jay-Z, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Harvey and Oprah’s best friend Gayle King, who has given $4,600 so far to Mr. Obama. Actor Hill Harper, who gave $2,300 in the last cycle, tweeted, “Headed 2 the White House in a bit for the President’s 50th. Perfect day 4 a Rose Garden Birthday toast 4 someone who’s been working so hard!”

Basketball player Grant Hill, who has given $2,300, tweeted, “Fun times at the White House celebrating the POTUS BDay.” His wife, singer Tamia Hill, who gave the same amount, tweeted, “UNFORGETTABLE NIGHT!! Thank you Mr. President for inviting us to celebrate your 50th birthday with you tonight.”

A grill fired up behind the White House served up a barbecue of hot dogs, hamburgers, chicken and ribs to the elite attendees. The White House said the first couple picked up the tab for the party, but it’s doubtful they got charged for much beside groceries.

A day earlier, Mr. Obama attended three fundraisers in his hometown of Chicago celebrating the big 5-0. These netted the Democrats an eye-popping $3,665,000. “I could not have a better early birthday present than spending tonight with all of you,” Mr. Obama said to the 1,700 people who paid $50 a ticket to get into one of the events.

Mr. Obama met separately with 100 of his most exclusive donors, each of whom forked over $35,800 per person to break bread with the birthday boy. Mr. Obama, who had added $3,938,093,118,800 to the national debt as of his birthday, told his rich friends that the government needs to spend more on everything from “wind turbine and electric cars” to “cures for cancer.”

Without any irony, he railed against “big money flooding the airwaves and slash-and-burn politics, sometimes I think that core belief in what is possible here in America gets lost.” Of course, Mr. Obama plans to flood those airwaves with $1 billion in campaign-funded commercials suggesting he is fighting for the average Joe.

One in 10 Americans can’t find a job and retirement funds are shrinking before their eyes. Voters ought to realize “the One” has far more in common with his wealthy Hollywood birthday pals.

There’s a lot of good stuff here today! However regarding people projecting their own desires upon Obama is a hypothesis I cannot swallow for it leaves him blameless & I cannot see him as an innocent.
————
The Dims must have an official action on about the tea party movement because Obama frequently disses it, and now here’s Long Bad John:

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday that the media has the responsibility to not give equal time or credence to the Tea Party’s views:
SEN. JOHN KERRY: “And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual. It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?”http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/05/john_kerry_media_has_responsibility_to_not_give_equal_time_to_tea_party.html

“Mr. Obama plans to flood those airwaves with $1 billion in campaign-funded commercials suggesting he is fighting for the average Joe…. Voters ought to realize “the One” has far more in common with his wealthy Hollywood birthday pals.”

Yeah, well Lynn Forester got attacked for calling The One an elitist because she’s got plenty of dough and contributed nothing to his campaign. Lady Lynn is indeed of the elite herself, but it should be remembered that there’s a difference between “elite” and “elitist”. FDR and JFK were both from a very wealthy elite but no one would ever have called either of them ‘elitist’.

Wisconsin Democratic Party flak threatens to sic union bullies on independent news group

A spokesman for the Wisconsin Democratic Party has threatened to sic union bullies on an independent news organization whose reporting he thinks is “biased.”

Graeme Zeilinski was upset that a WisconsinReporter.com reporter noted in an interview with the Heritage Foundation think thank that Wisconsin had, according to U.S. Department of Labor data, created nearly half of all the new jobs created across the country in June.

“What happens next is that I contact the publishers and editors of the papers that publish you as ‘unbiased,’ and let them know our deep concern about the obvious bias that permeates your entire operation,” Zielinski states in his email.

“Then, we let our activists know which papers publish you, and they write the publisher and editor. Then, we contact the Capitol press pool and let them know about our concerns about your credentialing. And we continue on until you actually admit to the truth of your operation.”

Of course, Democratic Party “activists” in Wisconsin consist primarily of public employee union members who earlier this year repeatedly jammed the state capitol with screaming protestors in an effort to intimidate legislators into not approving collective bargaining and compensation reforms sought by Gov. Scott Walker.

Zeilinski’s email could easily be read as a threat to organize union demonstrators against Wisconsin newspapers that publish reporting provided to them by WisconsinReporter.com’s staff. And his vow to go after WisconsinReporter.com’s capitol media credentials is an obvious effort to silence a news organization with which he disagrees.

When WisconsinReporter.com asked Beth Bennett, executive director of the Wisconsin Newspapers Association, for comment on Zeilinski’s threats, she characterized them as “out there” and unlike anything she’s seen previously during her career in Wisconsin government and media.

“To have a party official put something in writing like that is pretty out there,” she said. “I’ve seen a lot of emotions. Politics are bubbling to the surface in a way we don’t normally see with editorial products, but this is uncharted territory.”

WisconsinReporter.com is an independent news organization associated with the Franklin Center for Government and Public Intergrity, a non-profit foundation devoted to encouraging quality news reporting on state government and politics.

“Wisconsin Reporter’s content is trusted by tens of thousands of individuals in Wisconsin who get our stories, whether through our newspaper partners, our website, or they read it on Facebook or Twitter,” said Jason Stverak, Franklin’s president.

“The people of Wisconsin have come to rely on Wisconsin Reporter for trustworthy and credible content so they know what’s going on, not only in Madison but across the state,” Stverak said.

Stverak’s group has helped organize reporting groups like WisconsinReporter.com in 40 states across the country in the past two years. It is an example of a growing trend in the journalism world of independent journalism being backed by non-profit foundations.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I am a member of an advisory board of mainstream media journalists who assist Stverak and other Franklin officials in their work.

eff you J. Kerry. Just got this from MY freshman tea party House rep, and it is stellar … it is uplifting.

Part of a somewhat rambling article about the freshmen House members:

Debt ceiling debate causes freshmen to play activist role
…If Congress fails to find a deal to raise the debt ceiling before Aug. 2, the freshmen said it won’t be their fault — it’ll be the president’s responsibility. Tennessee Rep. Diane Black wrote a letter last month signed by 77 freshmen asking for a detailed plan from the president. New York Rep. Thomas Reed, who led the protest Tuesday, followed up this week with a letter signed by 65 of his colleagues and took it to the White House. The freshmen also joined Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt in another letter to the president last week asking him to prioritize Social Security, military benefits and interest payments on the debt if leaders didn’t reach a deal by Aug. 2. The president said last week he couldn’t promise Social Security payments would be made in the event of a default.

“I have a challenge for the president. I dare him, I double dare him to even think about cutting Social Security for the people who collect it, and dealing [with] the pay for the military,” Pennsylvania Rep. Tom Marino said. “The Republicans are not going to cut Social Security. We’re going to make sure that it’s out there and it’s out there on time.” But the freshmen aren’t just attacking Obama — they’re targeting some in their own party….http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59419.html

Imo David Sirota has done a good description of the results of the Obama campaign and administration: what has actually happened. Imo much of the ‘credit’ for this goes to forces behind Obama: money forces that were also pressuring Congress and the media. More likely Obama was their puppet, their figurehead, rather than a mastermind.

And by ‘Obama’ does he mean the indivicual, or the longterm team of Axelrod, Jarrett, etc? (Compare their use of Deval Patrick.)

So I’d praise Sirota’s analyxis of what happened, without getting bogged down in the question of what Obama himself is/was. It’s the pattern and the myth we need to fight.

Sirota:

[….] mustered the legislative strength of his New Deal predecessor — but he has channeled that strength into propping up the very forces of “organized money” that FDR once challenged.

On healthcare, for instance, Obama passed a Heritage Foundation-inspired bailout of the private health insurance industry, all while undermining other more-progressive proposals. On foreign policy, he escalated old wars and initiated new ones. On civil liberties, he not only continued the Patriot Act and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects but also claimed the right to assassinate American citizens without charge.

On financial issues, he fought off every serious proposal to reregulate banks following the economic meltdown; he preserved ongoing bank bailouts; and he resisted pressure to prosecute Wall Street thieves. On fiscal matters, after extending the Bush tax cuts at a time of massive deficits, he has used the debt ceiling negotiations to set the stage for potentially massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare — cuts that would be far bigger than any of his proposed revenue increases.

As hideous and destructive as it is, this record is anything but weak. It is, on the contrary, demonstrable proof of Obama’s impressive political muscle, especially because polls show he has achieved these goals despite the large majority of Americans who oppose them.

Importantly, though, Obama himself has not suffered from equally negative polling numbers. While his approval rating is not terrific, he is in decent shape for reelection — and, more significantly, he has suffered only a minimal erosion of Democratic support. He is relatively popular, in other words, despite advocating wildly unpopular policies. Thanks to that reality, every one of his stunning legislative triumphs now has the previously unprecedented imprimatur of rank-and-file Democratic support.

In forging such bipartisan complicity with what were once exclusively right-wing Republican objectives, Obama has achieved even more than what he fantasized about when he famously celebrated a previous bizarro FDR. In an illustrative 2008 interview with a Nevada newspaper, Obama lauded Ronald Reagan for “chang[ing] the trajectory of America” and “put[ting] us on a fundamentally different path.”

It is so horrible a thought but I agree with the writer that there is far more to this story than has so far been reported.

“There are many excuses in this in putting a twin rotor Chinook into that situation, but I will point out that it appears that Obama’s Taliban were waiting for that CH-47, and that means someone tipped them off. You know the same someones in the CIA who keep terrorists around Karzai’s brother to assassinate him.

Not making any accusations in the payback game, but there is more to this than what is being reported………and the most damning of this is Obama sent in special ops again for a mass murder political event, and Obama got Americans murdered instead.”

the most damning of this is Obama sent in special ops again for a mass murder political event

===============

Don’t see much support for this, dunno if they could cover it up that fast. The other story is that the US has been doing this sort of raid for quite a while getting various lesser figures, and this time some neighoring insurgents got lucky and hit the helicopter.

What’s clear is — if Obama gets the credit for the bin Laden raid success, does he get the blame for these ops getting killed? Silly question.

So what’s the tinfoil theory, again? Obama wanted another PR victory, so he sent Seals in an unprecedented raid. And also Obama tipped off his Taliban friends to shoot down the Seal helicopter? Sort of counter-productive for PR, wouldn’t that be?

It’s kind of an insult to the Seals, to believe they would have gone along with the ‘unprecedented’ raid, much less the tipping off.

Also quick work, to get NATO, the Guardian, etc to invent stories of such raids being common. And of insurgents shooting at their helicopters being common too.

The United Nations has assigned head-of-state status to the leader of the Palestinian Authority ahead of an anticipated vote by the world body on whether to recognize Palestinian statehood, a speakers list for the world body’s annual debate shows.

An “HS” designation means that Mahmoud Abbas, as the Palestinian Authority president, can speak towards the beginning of the Sept. 21-27 summit alongside other heads of state — and ahead of most heads of government, such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In previous years, Abbas has been listed as an “HL” — or “high level” delegate — for the entity of Palestine, which holds UN Observer status.

When I inquired about the HS designation, the UN department responsible for issuing the list insisted it was a typo.

Yet how coincidental it is that the “mistake” comes in a year that the Palestinian Authority pledged to seek official UN recognition of an independent Palestine that sits alongside an Israel with borders clipped to those that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War.

While any such recognition would require backing from the 15-member UN Security Council and two-thirds of the 192-member General Assembly, UN administrators are required to remain neutral on the matter.

Their “typo” doesn’t wash with Anne Bayefsky of the New York-based monitoring group Eye on the UN — which was the first to highlight the UN’s “HS” epithet for Abbas.

“The UN has pre-judged any vote that might take place on Palestinian statehood,” she tells me.

To Bayefsky, a Canadian law professor, the entry reflects “the deep-seated bias at the organization against Israel.”

Last year, 78 per cent of all General Assembly resolutions condemning any of the 192 UN member states for human rights violations were directed at Israel alone, according to research by Eye on the UN.

Supporters of Israel say such targeting is possible because of an “automatic majority” that Arab and Muslim states command in the General Assembly, with the help of a series of largely anti-West developing countries such as Cuba and Venezuela.

“The automatic majority at the UN has been in the driver’s seat for pushing through measures in favour of the Palestinians for years,” Bayefsky says.

Harper addressed last year’s debate on its first day — just ahead of Canada’s failed bid to win assembly election to the UN Security Council.

This year the UN has slotted Harper into a fourth-day Saturday spot, between the heads of government for Nepal and Andorra — and one day after Abbas.

Could Harper’s remote placement be connected in any way with the Canadian government’s recent pledge to vote against the Palestinian UN-membership bid should the issue come to the General Assembly floor?

Dimitri Soudas, Harper’s spokesman, told me there has been “no decision at this time” about whether the PM will even attend the debate.

The Palestinians say they have the support of 120 UN member states for their statehood bid. There’s the “automatic majority” at play.

But the United States, Israel’s closest ally, is expected to use its Security Council veto power to block any Palestinian bid to have that body endorse the UN membership push.

The United States agrees with Israel that a move toward the “two-state” solution should be negotiated. Of course, that’s Canada’s position too.

September’s debate will be chaired by Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, a diplomat of the Arab emirate of Qatar, elected by acclamation by the UN’s member states in June to be the General Assembly president for the new September to September “diplomatic” year.

Abbas addressed the assembly on the third day of each of the last two annual debates.

Jean Victor Nkolo, spokesman for current president Joseph Deiss of Switzerland, said that responsibility for issuing the speakers list lay with the General Assembly Affairs and Conference Management department. He told me officials there told him “that the typo will be corrected in the next version” of the speakers list.

moononpluto
I keep forgetting to relate this
A few weeks ago I was in a local pub and a woman sat down next to me and ordered a Jim Beam with a yuengling back. She had a card and the place is cash only. After midnight so closest ATM was blocks away. I told her not to sweat it and drink up. She wanted to repay me and I said double it and send it to St Judes. She then informed me that she works for a foundation in KY and deals with Dolly Parton’s people often and has heard the forget about it make a donation at every turn from her peeps. Was not aware of how much Parton has given, literacy seems to be her thing.

Few Americans needed Standard & Poor to confirm the mismanagement of the United States government and its finances. The downgrading of American credit will raise interest rates on America’s huge debt and ultimately on all Americans. Popular polls say that most Americans blame Congress—but that’s too simplistic.

As much as Barack Obama would like to shift that blame onto Congress, the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of President. It is first and foremost a leadership problem that is crippling America—and the leader is President Barack Obama—not the many members of Congress.

No matter how many speeches he makes, the conclusion is clear: Obama’s greatest failure is spending America into enormous deficits, and being clueless about how to get the economy to recover. His speeches, riddled with “I” and “We” are mostly serving to indict him for his failings. Appearing on TV more than any other sitting president, Barack Obama is constantly “explaining” why things aren’t working, when he should be working on what to do different and better.

Instead he is “campaigning,” which is the only thing he knows how to do reasonable well. But he can’t fix the economy; he has neither the experience nor the knowhow to do it. His failed, misguided policies have only exacerbated the size of his mistakes and shortcomings.

“I didn’t say ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow.,.’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in next week…’ “We knew this was going to take time.” —Barack Obama, Aug. 4, 2011.

Obama has surrounded himself with academics, theoreticians and politicians and all of theirsolutions are wrong, flawed and ineffective. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the evidence. Nobody in his inner circle has meaningful business experience. He not only doesn’t understand business, he dislikes businesses; they are only useful as a way to collect taxes to redistribute.

For Barack Obama’s first 18 months, and occasionally even today, he and his loyalists try to place the lion’s share of the blame for America’s problems with George W. Bush. There is little doubt that Bush erred seriously on several counts: he initiated two expensive wars and then saw the Iraq war mismanaged for at least 2-3 years.

Then Bush failed, along with the (then) GOP led Congress to rein in spending to compensate for the cost of these wars. Finally, he reduced tax rates and created the Medicare prescription drug program (which turned out to work better and cost far less than was feared). Coincidentally, the much-maligned TARP initiated by Bush actually staved off a financial collapse and is largely being paid back by the banks and insurance companies involved. In perhaps his greatest mistake, Bush failed to veto a single spending bill sent to him by Congress.

Bush’s mistakes were clearly serious errors, but they pale in comparison with Obama’s failures since he took office. The Democratically controlled Congress was complicit with Obama’s failures. They have not submitted, and Obama has not submitted a realistic budget for the country in over 800 days—a clear failure to meet their responsibilities. (Exception: Obama’s irresponsible Feb. budget, which was voted down 97-0 by a Democratically controlled Senate.)

To chronicle Obama’s failures and his shortcomings is impossible within the length of a simple blog post. A few of them are most notable. Obama aided and abetted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid rammed the new health care legislation down the throat of America—and Obamacare was created. Parts of it are well-intentioned, but much of it is feared by Americans and especially small businesses. Arguably some of Obama’s greatest damage to the economy has been done by his appointees in the EPA, NLRB, CPSC, et. al., and the Justice Department. American business is oppressed by regulation. Sadly, Obama barely realizes this.

Next came the $840 billion “stimulus” package, (mostly pork and patronage), which worked poorly or not at all—unless you consider creating jobs at $275,000 each to be a good solution. Not enough “shovel-ready” projects were really “shovel-ready” Obama admitted recently, chuckling awkwardly at his naiveté. Obama and his experts (now mostly gone back to finance or academia) predicted a drop of unemployment to under 8% when the number of jobless went the other way—upward. Now, more Americans have been out of work, for longer, than any time in the past half-century.

Obamacare not only violated many of his eloquent campaign promises; e.g., Taxes on Americans earning less than $200/$250,000 per year will no increase one penny—except for the new Obamacare tax to 3.8% applied to investment income—which will hit millions of Americans. When faced with his party’s impending losses in 2008 elections, Obama dispatched Rahm Emmanuel to attempt buying-off candidates in the 2008 primaries with a promise of high-level jobs, a legally questionable practice at best, and unethical one at worst.

During Obama’s term in office the deficit has grown astronomically as he continues, even to this day, to insist on more spending and more taxes (especially those on “millionaires and billionaires” a category that most Americans earning $200-250,000 per year hardly imagine including them.)

Those who point to his achievements name “bailing out” GM & Chrysler—but many experts feel that was done by using executive power for further illegal actions, denying legal bondholders their rightful returns. There is also a strong belief that ordinary bankruptcy could well have accomplished the same result at a cost of almost $20 billion less of taxpayers’ money. But then spending too much of taxpayers money has never bothered this White House.

To make Obamacare’s outrageous financial claims, Obama & his Democratic Congressional minions desperately needed to cut its cost. Thus, buried in the 2000+-page bill, Obama and his accomplices Reid and Pelosi cut $500 billion out of Medicare. Now he pretends to worry about seniors while ignoring Medicare’s impending insolvency. After all, even if Obama could win a second term, he will be gone before Medicare fails, and be able to blame it on his successor.

Barack Obama was going to close Gitmo—until he realized that it was as unrealistic as much of his campaign rhetoric. Obama has violated the law, which requires the president to act within 15 days after the Medicare commission advises him of a financing problem. His Democratic allies gave him a waiver in his first year, but this year—he simply ignored the law.

Obama followed Bush’s foreign policy and even left most Bush appointees in charge, until recently. Obama’s vanquished primary opponent Hillary Clinton has precluded him from making as big a debacle of foreign policy as he has on domestic policy. He tried, early in his career, kowtowing to foreign dictators and despots, apologizing for America instead of protecting and defending it.

The ultimate failure of President Barack Obama is that he is unable or unwilling to lead; to define anything more than vague generalities as a solution to America’s daunting problems. Even his own allies in the GAO state, “we can’t value a speech.” In his desperation to run for reelection, Obama continues to abdicate his responsibilities. The debt ceiling was a showcase of his failings as he periodically jumped in and out of negotiations until he literally neutralized himself.

The president made himself an outsider in the decision, even as he tried to sound like a voice of reason, making speech after speech, saying less in each successive one. Senator Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner finally fought through massive partisan problems to reach a compromise agreement—but it was clearly too little, too late. Kicking the hard work down to a twelve person “super-committee” was not enough to settle financial markets.

While Barack Obama campaigned, making still more speeches at his 50th birthday celebrations, the Wall Street voted with its money and the Dow-Jones average dropped over 500 points and the S. & P. dropped even more—5%+. 117,000 jobs created in July don’t even approach the number needed to offset new entries to the workforce. The drop in unemployment from 9.2% to 9.1% signals more unemployed Americans giving up, not more of them being hired.

Happy Birthday Mr. President. You have accomplished something no other president has done. You’ve spent America into a hole that will take a decade to fix, and kept more Americans out of work longer than anyone in recent history, and you’ve accomplished all this in record time, only 2-1/2 years. Who knows how much harm you can do given still more time.

——————————————–

John Mariotti is an internationally known executive, consultant and an award-winning author. His book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books. In a recent novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, he merges an exciting fictional thriller with the factual reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. (www.thechinesecomspiracy.com). Mariotti does Keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies.

Half joking I am considering running for the Senate in PA. Idiot Casey pulls the party line with no respect to his constituents — Repugs offering zip as viable candidate.
i have zero money so I’d be reduced to dressing up outlandishly to get attention but then I would promise to represent my constituents and not a party. i woulsd scream and i mean really scream i would never vote on a bill any bill that i have not read.
Slept with lots of 80’s where are they now actors so drumming up media attention would be no problem.
I’d also kick off my campaign with a whole lot of what is wrong with me. i’d spiel every dirty secret neutering the opposition.
half joking but sort of serious i have no problem being clad in tea bags and skydiving.

Several contributors here have recently said that mea culpas by former Waffles supporters get on their nerves. If this is true for everyone, then excuse the following; but personally, I like reading things like this:

Hillary for president

By Christopher Sprigman August 5, 2011

&&&&&&

I completely agree, that using reformed Hopium users’ testimony is priceless. I can’t get enough. It is totally effective.

Here’s a funny– i have “labored” on a script for years which is a modern day adaptation of Silas Marner/Rumplestilskin/Three Men and a Baby. in a nut shell mean guy in three acts(trimesters) goes from selfish to awareness to giving. Same old but retold, Got lots of noise from those who read it but zero offers. Anyhow had two bottles of Pinot Gris(No idea what the differnce is betwween pinot grigio and pinot gris) but I had access to a keyboard and was thinking about Washingtom no internet so I did what any self depecating booze bag does — I wrote a story. Sloppy shoddy but funny bit which I titled “Boinked” about people who slept with people. Pseudo political as it is about the people that did the nasty and why and where to go from there. Dark dark comedy. At best 70 pages which to me is a sketch. Sent it to my, what some might call an agent and two hours later on a Saturday(Sunday morning) I get love it LOVE YOU. You are GENUIS. Will talk moving forward with a thrust on this one baby. YUCK~! Thrust? I felt dirty reading the word.

The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of bin Laden to counter Obama’s growing reputation as ineffectual.

The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made “The Hurt Locker” will no doubt reflect the president’s cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 — perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.

The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.

It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president’s image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently — to the surprise of some military officers — at a CIA ceremony celebrating the hero SEALs.

Oh, what nonsense! They had been watching the house for months. In fact there was little if any armed resistance. Nobody shot at the helicopters (unlike in Afganistan just now). They were there for iirc 40 minutes and the Pakistan police/military didnt’ dare come close.

This is funny
I exchange emails with a couple of writers online and just to be silly sometimes they trow up a hot topic and and a corney song with the challange to make a horror story’ out of it. Todays is Chttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I89lfJsW3bE&NR=1&feature=fvwp

WASHINGTON, DC – Sources close to Hillary Clinton say she will announce her run for President in 2012.

Hillary Clinton came to WWN Headquarters [really? Very dubious!] and told editors that she is livid about the downgrade of the U.S. Credit Rating. “I’ve stood silent long enough. I don’t think Obama is a leader and I know… I know I can do a much better job. I am a true leader and… I am going to challenge Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for the President of the United States.”

The White House was quick to deny the news, saying that as far as they knew Hillary Clinton is happy as Secretary of State and remains loyal to Barack Obama.

But, WWN has learned that in recent weeks, Bill Clinton, has been meeting with democratic operatives in Washington and grass roots leaders early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Bill thinks this time around, Hillary can easily wrestle the nomination from a weakened Barack Obama. [Now, THAT may be true!]

Some cynical Republican consultants feel that this was the plan all along. “They made a pact back in 2008. Barack would serve one term and get Obamacare passed, then Hillary would serve two terms and pass the other elements of their progressive agenda. The plan is working perfectly.”

Sources close to Hillary said, however, that Hillary has not spoken to Barack Obama personally in over three weeks. [If true, that is definitely a sign because HRC normally holds weekly meetings with Waffles, on Thursday morning.] “Hillary feels that President Obama has moved dramatically to the center and abandoned the core progressive principles they both hold dear.”

A quick Rasmussen poll [?? should be checked] of Democratic primary voters puts the race at 52% for Hillary and 45% for Obama with 3% undecided.

James Carville, Paul Begala and, surprisingly, Dick Morris, have all signed up to join the Hillary for President team. 2012 is going to be a wild year. [Now, that is credible as concerns Carville and Begala and even Morris. I think they should be sounded out about heading up a draft-Hillary movement.]

Bill Clinton likes Hillary’s chances. “Hillary is going to crush Obama. And the country is going to get two for one. We are back, baby. We’re back!!” [Bullshit. WJC would never say anything like that on record.]

Republicans and Tea Party Patriots are… very worried. VERY worried. [There’s no reason why Tea Party people should be worried: a balanced budget is a bedrock issue for HRC. I can see why Reps would be worried, though, ’cause a large segment of Republicans would willingly vote for HRC against a vanilla Republican.]
________

Does anyone know anything about this “World Weekly News” or the author? Is this the kind of organ to go around stirring up shit or are they serious? Some things are possible or even likely (Carville & Co.) in the above article; but then again, there are the dubious tidbits…

I think we need to start the mantra here and make it stick that “this happened on Obama’s watch” no more of this Bush’s fault, Bush has not been in office since Jan 2009, its now August 2011, that shit dont fly anymore.

Of course the Seals were gutsy. I mean “Nothing gutsy or shaky about it” FOR OBAMA. He had nothing to lose if the bin Laden raid had failed. Till they got home and announced it, no one knew they were after bin Laden=newsworthy.

Yesterday I submitted a link indicating Sen. Kerry felt the tea party got too much press. Not 24 hours later, my internet travels have taken me to the opposite claim:

…The president has been slow to catch onto the Tea Party tsunami. It may be that his friends in what Sarah Palin calls the “lamestream” media have helped his “willful disbelief.” Since February 19, 2009, when CNBC’s Rick Santelli issued his now-famous rant on nationwide TV against Obama’s big spending programs and encouraged others to turn out for a Chicago tea party, the networks have underplayed the rising movement….http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/06/why-is-community-activist-obama-so-clueless-about-tea-party/

With these links now united on one thread, should we make a claim for ‘fair and balanced?’ 🙂

As Barack Obama dances barefoot on the White House lawn, members of the special forces unit that killed Osama Bin Laden are shot out of the sky in Afghanistan. For the first time in history America’s credit rating is lowered. The stock market continues its slide. Unemployment remains high. What the hell is going on?
*****************************************************

Conflicting reports regarding the tragic death of several SEAL Team Six members are now circulating, with some indicating those killed were directly involved in the operation against the Osama Bin Laden compound and others indicating those SEALS killed were not part of the Bin Laden raid. Further details will likely unfold over the next 48 hours, but the story nevertheless is a reminder to all of just how odd the Osama Bin Laden killing itself was. No photos of Bin Laden’s body were released, despite both then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telling the media those photos would be forthcoming. Reports of a detached and uninvolved Barack Obama being pulled off the golf course as the raid was already underway were soon after seemingly supported by the now infamous photo of the president sitting to the side against the wall of the situation room dressed in his golf attire, looking confused, uncertain, and most certainly, out of his element.
***************************************************************************************

This detached behavior was recently seen again during the debt ceiling negotiations and even more recently during the aftermath of the historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, an event that will have far-reaching and negative implications for an already struggling American economy. Barack Obama said nothing regarding the downgrade, instead focusing on his own birthday party and fundraising for his upcoming 2012 re-election campaign. Reports have come forth detailing the First Couple dancing barefoot on the White House lawn during the birthday celebration (media were banned from the event) as Hip-Hop music blared from inside the White House. Has any American president so mirrored the tale of Emperor Nero fiddling away as Rome burned as has Barack Hussein Obama?

From ulsterman.
As Barack Obama dances barefoot on the White House lawn, members of the special forces unit that killed Osama Bin Laden are shot out of the sky in Afghanistan. For the first time in history America’s credit rating is lowered. The stock market continues its slide. Unemployment remains high. What the hell is going on?

WOW! Picture that as a slow motion segment in a movie about either: how the democracy was stolen from Americans; or how the American people took it back – violently or not. Time will tell. What music will be played in the background?

The predictable MSM reaction to Standard & Poor’s downgrading of the US government’s credit rating? Kill the messenger, of course. Yesterday, we noted how Jeff Glor at CBS’ Early Show parroted the Obama line about the downgrade being “political.”

Today it was ABC’s turn.

Good Morning America had on Mellody Hobson, a regular ABC “financial contributor” and former host of her own ABC financial-advice show. Hobson hit S&P hard, expressing the view that “everything that they do is suspect.”

There’s just one little factoid ABC didn’t share with viewers. While presented as an ostensibly objective financial expert, Chicagoan Hobson in fact is an Obama partisan. Hobson served as a big-time fundraiser during Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and is involved with his 2012 campaign.

View video here.

DAN HARRIS: America’s credit rating has now been knocked down a peg by Standards [sic] and Poor’s. This morning a question a lot of people are asking: who are these people who have sat in judgment of America?

. . .

DAVID CURLEY: Who is Standard & Poor’s? One of the three major rating agencies which highlight investment risk. S&P is considered the gold standard among these. But that standard has was tarnished when all the rating agencies said those mortgage-backed securities, which brought down the economy, were solid AAA investments. Hauled before Congress, some now question that agency’s credibility.

MELLODY HOBSON: Now they come in, and they flex. As if they’ve been, you know, this bastion of, of correctness, when they’ve completely been wrong. So now, everything that they do is suspect, in my view.

Unfortunately for us, BO will not be impeached. But I would settle for a quick resignation and books galore after he disappears explaining in great detail what, why and how he tried to destroy the country.

I want him Nixonized. I want him to go away. I want the dimtards disbanded. I want him exiled.

Standard and Poor’s managing director John Chambers holds a press conference because the complaints have gotten so loud that their figures are wrong and their rating is political — including a dismissals from Europe and the like. So he doubles down, after admitting that the Treasury is right that his figures are in error by $2 trillion, but then starts saying the whole thing is about the debt ceiling “debacle” continuing “until almost the midnight hour” and David Beers talking about how fiscal policy is “fundamentally a political process”.

All of which is fine and true if that’s the reason for the downgrade because that would make sense: The risk, now that default has become fair game as a political blackmail tool, changes, and perhaps the credit rating should reflect that.

But if that’s the case, then the $2 trillion calculation didn’t matter in the first place so why was it calculated? And why is there a warning of future downgrades if serious cuts are not made? And why was the original warning of a downgrade made in April “if the government did not agree on a $4 Trillion deficit reduction package”? That did not have anything to do with a debacle going to almost the midnight hour.

No, sir, Mr. Chambers. You blackmailed the U.S. government with your credit rating threat over a period of months for an austerity plan in the face of economic indicators showing that an austerity plan was the worst thing that could be done for the nation, given the economy. And now you’re trying to change that, in addition to the $2 Trillion dollar accounting error, to look like there’s a new reason to take you seriously. But there hasn’t been one of those since you underwrote hundreds of trillions of dollars in collateralized debt obligations at AAA. Debt obligations you never downgraded even though it was well past the midnight hour, you fraud.

Oh, and one more thing John Chambers…

…The collateral on those collateralized debt obligations had to be stolen retroactively from homeowners by hiring deadbeats to robosign foreclosure documents on houses your clients never owned. So what exactly does the rating AAA really mean, coming from Standard & Poors?

During this recent heat wave the most vulnerable of our population are being put on the chopping block as Obama continues to make legislative decisions which reflect not only his fascist intentions, but those of an empire whose eyes are still set on destroying the United States through mad belief in our now failed monetary system. How much does it cost to defend this dead system? How much does it cost NOT to invest in programs which can assist mankind in dealing with the forces of nature?

I had great difficulty locating the latest Ulsterman Report..There is so much happening, it’s hard to know where to find him. Basil posted what she found on the Seals report. He is the latest news I’ve been waiting for on the GunRunning Investigation. It seems Issa is closing in on Obama and Holder.
______________________________

So [ S&P director] doubles down, after admitting that the Treasury is right that his figures are in error by $2 trillion, but then starts saying the whole thing is about the debt ceiling “debacle” continuing “until almost the midnight hour” and David Beers talking about how fiscal policy is “fundamentally a political process”.

All of which is fine and true if that’s the reason for the downgrade because that would make sense: The risk, now that default has become fair game as a political blackmail tool, changes, and perhaps the credit rating should reflect that.

LOL! And I thought I was joking with that theory!

But if that’s the case, then the $2 trillion calculation didn’t matter in the first place so why was it calculated? And why is there a warning of future downgrades if serious cuts are not made?

Now that’s a silly argument! Because BOTH factors matter, of course. Ability to pay — AND a responsible attitude and enough good sense not to shout “Default!” in political theatre.

“enough good sense not to shout “Default!” in political theatre” The only people stupid to threaten Default on 31 billion was Waffles and the idiot dems, it was not the Tea Party.

===================

The term “default”, or statements just as scary, were heard from both sides.

As for the US credit rating, it doesn’t matter whether someone was threatening “default” about the debt ceiling (a formality), or about the actual larger situation (“too much debt”). Well, actually, talking “default” about the larger situation would be MORE scary to people like S&P who know the ceiling was just nonsense.

Again, NOT TRUE. It was tea party people like Rand Paul who were saing prioritze all debts, a “default” means only thing, not paying interest on bonds internationally owned. Only the stupid dems were scarying people, especially the ignorant Waffles media.

As for “too much debt”, S&P are big girls and boys, they have downgraded corporations as well as countries, they have downgraded Australia, even Canada some time ago. Pointing out “too much debt” is not scarying anyone, least of all Standard & Poors. Openly acknowledging a problem is not going to solve it or make it go away.

And we are already defaulting, not a technical default, printing more money to pay bills, internationally or nationally, is a default. Rome tried this, Britian tried this, and even worse case Wiemar Germany tried it. It never works, pain in coming, either it is confronted on our terms or it will be imposed on us, and it will not be the David Gregories, or the pundits who carry Waffles’ water who will suffer, it will average hardworking middle class people, either through a combination of higher taxes and lower standard of living — via inflation, a hidden tax.

Will the world’s last communist state now have to bail out the capitalist West?
By Jonathan Fenby

America’s credit rating being downgraded is a crucial moment not just for the United States but for the world. The world’s most powerful nation and its President have been humbled in full global view.

More fundamentally, the Western political class has been found sadly wanting in its inability to cope with a long-brewing crisis as the balance of global economic power shifts to Asia.

The interconnected nature of globalised economics and politics means there is no hiding place from the woes of the nation we have grown used to exercising leadership since 1945 and since the end of the Cold War two decades ago.

Even if we did not always relish it, America was there as an anchor for the world. Now the anchor has lost its moorings and the future has become more perilous for everybody.

Though stock markets may have discounted the downgrade, which by cruel coincidence came on the same day that US forces in Afghanistan suffered a terrible loss, and there may be some bargain-buying early next week, the fundamental problem remains.

After the experience of the past weeks, confidence in the political leadership has dropped sharply in America and is little stronger in the eurozone, given the unravelling sovereign debt crisis there.

Fund managers deploying the savings of individual investors and pension funds rush from one supposed safe haven to another as their antipathy to risk mounts by the day – last week, the rush into cash savings was such that a big New York bank was able to charge depositors interest on their money.

Despite no shortage of warning signs, governments have signally failed to get to grips with the mounting challenge of low growth and rising debt, hoping that the world economy could avoid a repeat of the 2008 crisis that spread out from Wall Street across the globe.

But fundamental issues are unavoidable, and must include tougher action from elected political leaders – starting with the man in the White House.

The decision of the rating agency Standard & Poor’s to demote the US from the top level of AAA to AA+ late on Friday night may seem a technical matter that need not concern us much in our everyday lives.

The US Treasury insists that it is all a mathematical misunderstanding with S&P making a $2 trillion error in its calculations. But, coming after the debacle of the debate on the federal debt ceiling, this is the moment when the lights have turned from green to amber, with red round the corner.

S&P calls the outlook for America ‘negative’, suggesting that another downgrade is possible in due course.

The Obama administration has shown itself unable and unwilling to exercise leadership. Even its one-time supporters on the Left are now appalled at the way it has lost the plot – just as the Jim Callaghan Government once did here, forcing it to call in the International Monetary Fund.
***************************************************************

So all eyes turn to China, the world’s second biggest economy which holds about 65 per cent of its $3 trillion reserves in dollars, mainly in US government bonds. If the post-Cold War global system dominated by America is stumbling into its final act, can the new economic superpower step forward – or will the last major state ruled by a communist party leave the West to stew in its own juice?

Good Afternoon Basil, that is an interesting article. The thing is I do think we are in massive trouble. Bush with the Iraq war spent money we did not have, and now Waffles has made it much worse in a shorter timeframe. China’s Yuan currency I do not believe will be the reserve currency, they and the IMF have publically stated they want a SDR to be the replacement, this way it is not tied to any one country. This would be very bad news for America, because we have then lost our advantage of a reserve currency status, and our spending will have to be cut drastically if that happens.
Sadly, I do see this happening, we have such ignorant people in DC, with no common sense, never worked in the real world, etc. I watched John Kerry this morning on some sunday show bitch and moan about the TP, and the whole time I was just getting more and more disgusted at these elitist buffoons.
The TP, the one who goes after both parties, all they did is kept screaming about the termites of overspending and overregualted on the foundation of the economy of our country, and Kerry wants to blame them for pointing this out and taking a hardline in saying NO! enough! these are the same people who did not want TARP, no bailouts, etc. These people do not want Medicare or SS gone, most of them are middle class themselves, they want reform for sustainability and pro-growth, limited govt policies to grow the economy, which will then allow for a stronger more sustainable safety net.

I fear this country’s economic future will get much worse in the coming years, and no business I know, even some stupid enough to vote for waffles in 2008, trusts him anymore. They see him as a redistriubutionist, a marxist. People trusted Bill Clinton, Gingrich, even GWB, because they saw the govt not as a thing that takes money and redistributes it, but rather like BC did to use govt to give a helping hand to those who temporarily needed it and then become productive members of society, not to create a permanent welfare state, which I firmly believe is Waffle’s goal.
After all, when you help a person earn that economic freedom, they can no longer be scared into voting for a certain political party, that self reliance is a freeing event, but if you have policies that create that dependency of welfare then they will never get out and keep voting for the same people, not realising that it in their hands to create their future.
I truely weep for this country, what we could have had and what is there now. 🙁

“Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann led the attack against Obama on Friday night.

“America’s creditworthiness just became the latest casualty in President Obama’s failed record of leadership on the economy,” Romney said in statement. “His failed policies have led to high unemployment, skyrocketing deficits, and now, the unprecedented loss of our nation’s prized AAA credit rating.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who is vying to win the Iowa Republican caucus next year, turned up the rhetoric even higher.

Romney and Bachmann attack the president’s non-leadership:

“This president has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through failed economic policies and his inability to control government spending by raising the debt ceiling,” she said. “President Obama is destroying the foundation’s of our economy one beam at a time.”

Bachmann voted against the final debt deal, as well as the Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) proposal. She also accused the Obama administration of “scare tactics” for warning about a possible U.S. default if no action were taken.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has told President Barack Obama that he intends to stay on the job, Treasury said in a statement on Sunday afternoon.

“Secretary Geithner has let the president know that he plans to stay on in his position at Treasury,” Assistant Treasury Secretary Jenni LeCompte said. “He looks forward to the important work ahead on the challenges facing our great country.”

Geithner had indicated he might leave after a debt-limit increase was approved, but administration officials indicated that both Obama and the White House chief of staff had urged Geithner not to leave now.

I can’t stand when the dims go after the tea party, either. First of all, it is not an organized political party. It is filled from the ranks of people who feel they are Taxed Enough Already.

LSM pols and reporters are despicable liars and the demonization of anyone who does not tout the party line is disgusting. Alinsky tactics – isolate, attack, humiliate, destroy – we have seen the same beginning with the treatment of HRC to labeling anyone anti-BO as racists to protestations that Islamists are good for us – no danger, harmless as puppy dogs – to assaults against Palin, Bachmann, women, and now the TEA Party.

I HATE them. Difficult as it may be to believe, I actually considered myself a dim until 2008 when the HRC-bashing pushed me over the top and I switched to Indy.

I know little about financial matters but I DO know when I am being ROBBED!

Anyway, quick financial question – if you had saved $15G or so and could (almost) pay off a mortgage or replace a ten-year old car in danger of not making it through next winter which would you do?

basil, looks like I was wrong on the timing, the chinese are now openly saying the Dollar will not be the reserve currency for wrong, they have never been this open and direct in their wording, and even more frightening, IMF’s LeGarde just gave one of the top positions in the IMF to a chinese official.

“The man who leads one of China’s top rating agencies says the greenback’s status as the world’s reserve currency is set to wane as the world’s most powerful policy makers convene to examine the implication of S&P’s decision to strip the United States of its triple “A” rating.

In comments emailed to CNBC, Guan Jianzhong, chairman of Dagong Global Credit Rating, said the currency is “gradually discarded by the world,” and the “process will be irreversible.””

““The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default” said Greenspan on NBC’s Meet the Press

“What I think the S&P thing did was to hit a nerve that there’s something basically bad going on, and it’s hit the self-esteem of the United States, the psyche” said Greenspan”

Do these people understand that yes, we can print money to pay bills, but we are paying them with devalued monies, and that printed money amount gets put on our 14.5 trillion debt, that someone in the future will have to pay.

still trying to figure that out, I have read that he closed his hedge fund to outside investors because of dodo-frank’s bill, but I find it strange that he was one of the first to do so & quickly, when the rest of the hedge fund industry, as far as I have read, have not acted as quickly as him.

“The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default” said Greenspan on NBC’s Meet the Press.”

I heard that, too and I was thinking if someone relatively unsophisticated about financial matters like me understands what a CROCK that statement was then either Greenspan was deliberately lying or he is stupid.

Actually, I think Geither wanted to leave, and Waffles cannot find anyone else in such short notice, the confirmation battle itself will be awful publicity for Waffles (and that is all that really matter to Waffles). I remember reading Geither wanted to go back to NY.

Why Is Obama So Clueless About the Tea Party?
By Liz Peek Published August 06, 2011 | FoxNews.com

How can community activist President Obama continually underestimate the Tea Party? Mr. Obama celebrated his ability to clean up asbestos from public housing as a young organizer; why is he blind to the growing power of Tea Party activists who are trying to clean up our country’s balance sheet?
In the recent debate on raising the debt ceiling, the president completely dismissed the influence of the Tea Party. He ignored the pledge signed by some 236 House Republicans and 41 GOP senators sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform – an organization sympathetic to the Tea Party — vowing to not raise taxes or to sanction tax reforms that would result in higher revenues. The president continued to grandstand about a “balanced approach” that would include higher taxes even as he and his improbable proposals were ultimately relegated to the sidelines.
One thing is clear: the Tea Party won the debt ceiling skirmish and changed the nation’s discourse. The movement shifted the country’s focus to cutting spending and restoring our country’s fiscal health – a stunning volte face for our indulgent body politic. You have to wonder, when will Mr. Obama take the Tea Party seriously?
The tea leaves have not been hard to read….http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/08/06/why-is-community-activist-obama-so-clueless-about-tea-party

Obama is at war with S&P now, clearly a big mistake, Obama really does not want to pick a war with these guys, this clearly shows panic stations at the WH, this is real danger for them, if the stocks collapse tomorrow, Obama is going to be in a whole heap of shit.

All this crap at this is a “Tea party downgrade”….last time i looked the Tea Party is not in Govt and do not hold 2/3rds of the power.

And we are already defaulting, not a technical default, printing more money to pay bills, internationally or nationally, is a default.

=====================

Well, there you go saying “default” again. 😉 I said that both sides were using scary terms and scary statements — which you just did also. Scary talk about the larger situation is really more scary than talk about the debt ceiling.

Thanks for a reasonable reply though. Sorry I don’t have time to find direct scary quotes from the GOP. Obama’s were all to easy to find, and he did escalate by threatening SS/VA.

There are major disturbances all over London, rioting looting and the UK news channels are censoring and not reporting, have they been ordered, they are running reruns and a paper review. This is so censored.

The recent wave of alienation could hit Democrats and Republicans alike in 2012. Will voters throw the bums out again?

In the shadow of the bitterly fought agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling, the independent voters who usually hold the balance of power in American politics are expressing astronomical levels of discontent with President Obama, Congress, and the Washington system itself.

This towering wave of alienation presages more volatility for a political system that has seen the public turn from Republicans in 2004 toward Democrats in 2006 and 2008, only to snap back toward the GOP with near-record force in 2010. Now, on several key measures, the public’s assessment of Congress is even more bleak than it was at this point in the last election cycle–even as Obama’s ratings have fallen to some of the lowest levels of his presidency, particularly among independents.

With each party hemorrhaging public support amid political polarization and economic stagnation, the implications for 2012 are complex and unpredictable. American history lacks a true example of an election in which voters turned out large numbers of incumbents from both parties, but to some observers that no longer seems impossible amid the declining support for both Obama and congressional Republicans. And while no serious independent presidential candidate has yet emerged, the numbers show an unmistakable opening for a Ross Perot-style outsider candidate who mobilizes voters unhappy with both major parties.

The stock market’s stomach-turning decline Thursday both parallels and reinforces the dismal verdict on Washington rendered in recent surveys: as the market Thursday tumbled almost as fast as the latest approval ratings for Obama and Congress, it seemed as if we were witnessing a simultaneous vote of no confidence from the public in both the American economy and its national government. On both fronts, the gathering gloom points to a wavering of national confidence certain to draw comparisons to the national “malaise” that undermined Jimmy Carter’s presidency in the late 1970s and provided the backdrop for Ronald Reagan’s 1980 landslide.

Rather than reversing the public disillusionment with Washington, this week’s agreement to avoid federal default and institute a process for long-term reduction of the federal deficit appears only to have deepened the doubts. That marks a stark contrast from the last major bipartisan deficit-reduction deal between President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress in 1997, which strengthened both sides and drew support in polls from about two-thirds of Americans in each party. “Unlike the budget deal of 1997, which in the end of was kind of a grand moment of looking forward to the future of the country, this one ended badly for everybody,” said Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster at the time. “There weren’t any real winners, and the system looked bad for potentially endangering the country’s fiscal future because of political games.”

The results of polls taken just before and after the debt-ceiling agreement announced last Sunday underscore Penn’s conclusion. They show a dim assessment of the agreement, all the key players, and Washington itself, especially among the independent voters who provided the decisive votes for Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections and for the GOP in 2010.

Consider these recent findings:

•On Wednesday, Gallup reported that a 46 percent to 39 percent plurality of Americans said they opposed the agreement to raise the federal debt ceiling. Among independents, the reaction was much worse: just 33 percent approved, while 50 percent approved.
•In a CNN/ORC poll conducted on Monday and released on Tuesday, just 14 percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way Congress is handling its job, while 84 percent disapproved. That was not only the lowest level of approval, and the highest level of disapproval, that the CNN poll has recorded — the gap between the approval and disapproval numbers were as wide as Gallup has recorded in any of its polls measuring congressional performance dating back to 1974. The public verdict on Congress today is more negative than it was just before the election landslides that switched control of Congress in 1994, 2006, and 2010: Gallup surveys in the fall of those years put congressional approval between 21 percent and 26 percent.

The irony is that the rioting is apparently because a “gangsta” was shot and gangsta cronies want to avenge the “racist” UK cops for shooting at a black guy after HE shot at them.

In the meantime hordes of rampaging black teens attack whites at a Wisconsin State Fair in the US and what does the LSM report? Crickets. I have read theories about WHY this is not being reported and it involves social conditioning, intimidation and the 2012 elections. Hint. Remember the Philly black Panther poll bullying?

Fothermuckers. One day soon those throwing around accusations will get theirs. And I can’t wait, starting with the top fothermucker at the WH and his heftier half.

whatever I thought of Bush, I thought he was at least genuine. Waffles really is an uncaring, incompetent ignorant selfish jerk, I cannot believe he actually went golfing today, I really can no longer believe we have an empty suited amateur po$ who could not care less about this country and he does not care that Americans know this. I am really speechless, he actually went golfing today.

the US is teetering perilously close to the UK “don’t name the attacker’s race” model. I apologize – we’ve already gotten there and this is what the future holds if the US does not STOP the BS – not naming MUSLIM terrorists, not naming Black teens terrorizing state fair goers.

Not speaking the friggin truth.

What colour is Mark Duggan? Mark Duggan is the man who was shot dead by the police on Thursday in Tottenham. The Tottenham riots last night were sparked when people protested his death. This morning, I first heard of the riots on the radio, then on the television. I read articles on the internet. But oddly, no one would say what colour Mark Duggan was. No one would say the unsayable, that the rioters were, I suspect on the whole, black. Then, finally, Toby Young’s Telegraph blog post on the riots was published. Is Toby Young the only journalist out there who will dare say that these riots are about race?

Still, one paper did carry a photo of Mr Duggan. When I saw the photo, it confirmed what I knew instinctively: black youths once again have set London alight.

Some of the black kids I used to teach will tell you that the riots are absolutely justified. A number of adults would agree with them. Everywhere I read that the protest was understandable because “people are very angry”.

I’d like to know what they’re angry about. Mark Duggan is dead. He was shot by the police in a shootout. Duggan was in a minicab and shots were fired from both the cab and the police elsewhere. A police officer was hurt in the incident and a bullet was found lodged in a police radio. Either Duggan was shooting at the police or the driver of the minicab was. Either Duggan was in the wrong place at the wrong time and his death is a terrible tragedy – he was caught in the crossfire – or he shot at the police and the police defended themselves. Whatever the explanation, the police did not kill this man in cold blood.

Yet, a friend of Duggan who gave her name as Niki, 53, said marchers had wanted “justice for the family” and “something had to be done”. She said some of them lay in the road to make their point. “They’re making their presence known because people are not happy. This guy was not violent. Yes, he was involved in things but he was not an aggressive person. He had never hurt anyone.”

I wonder what “involved in things” means? I also wonder whether the police officer who was hurt at the scene believes Mark Duggan never hurt anyone. “Something had to be done”? She makes it sound as if the police are killing black people every other weekend and finally someone decided to take a stand.

At school I remember watching a presentation given to the kids by Trident, the Metropolitan Police Service unit set up to investigate and inform communities of gun crime in London’s black community. I didn’t know what Trident was then, and it struck me that all of the photos of people shot (the idea was to scare the kids) were black. So at the end, I approached one of the policemen and asked him what percentage of those involved in gun crime were black. I kid you not, but my question made this thirty-something white man who was, after all, trained to deal with the black community and its issues, turn pink.

He explained that about 80 per cent of gun crime took place in the black community. I smiled uncomfortably. But no, he said, it was worse than that. Then he told me that 80 per cent was black on black gun crime, and that of the remaining 20 per cent about 75 per cent involved at least one black person: black shooting white, or white shooting black. I pushed to know more. While he kept saying his stats were crude and he didn’t have scientific numbers, on the whole the whites who were involved in these shootings tended to be from Eastern Europe.

Was any of this ever mentioned in their presentation? Of course not. Just like the news about the Tottenham riots doesn’t mention race either.

Problems cannot be addressed unless people are willing to tell the truth. As with so many other things in this country, we stick our heads in the sand and refuse to speak out about it.

“Geithner was on NBC and when discussing the massively overdue S&P downgrade of US debt, shared the following pearl of wisdom: “S&P decision to cut U.S. credit rating shows stunning lack of knowledge about basic U.S. fiscal budget math.” Listen to Tim: when it comes to stunning lacks of knowledge about things, Tim is the absolute expert, although in his case it is mostly the US tax code.”

Now we know why Waffles wanted Geithner to stay on, he is the only one willing to peddle such nonsense for Waffles.

Actually, I think Geither wanted to leave, and Waffles cannot find anyone else in such short notice, the confirmation battle itself will be awful publicity for Waffles (and that is all that really matter to Waffles). I remember reading Geither wanted to go back to NY.
_________________________

Do you remember in 2008, when it was the height of the campaign, there was a website created by Hillary’s supporters (I forget the name)? I remember there was a black gentleman who supported Hillary, I believe he was an immigrant from Jamaica? a doctor, I remember he said Hillary could have had 8 years, Waffles another 8, but instead there may only be 4, and it will be 4 horrible years.
I really no longer listen or care any of these fools have to say, they went after Hillary, her supporters, they went after Sarah, her supporters (heck even Bush was torn apart by these people), these people are the real bullies in America, they are the “mean girls” in this society.
The joke is on them though, they have not realised it, the rest of America has or is beginning to, at a very fast pace.

For Axelrod to comeout from under his rock- The WH is in Big Trouble!
___________________

White House adviser blames tea party for downgradeAxelrod

WASHINGTON (AP) — A top White House adviser is blaming the downgrade of the U.S. credit rating on tea party Republicans, whom he says were unwilling to compromise on how to reduce the federal debt.

The adviser to President Barack Obama, David Axelrod, tells CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday that the decision by the Standard & Poor’s credit agency to downgrade the U.S. from AAA to AA+ for the first time was strongly influenced by weeks of standoff between Democrats and Republicans over the debt.

Axelrod calls the action, in his words, “a tea party downgrade” and says it’s clearly on the backs of lawmakers who were willing to see the country default to get their way.

Axelrod also criticized GOP presidential candidates for not speaking up in favor of compromise.

Axelrod is really losing it calling the T-Party part of ?government?. Well, desperation is the Mother of Invention. Typical revisionist history coming from the dummies pretending to be capable of running the country.

“the US is teetering perilously close to the UK “don’t name the attacker’s race” model.’
**********
That discussing is on-line at one of the local newspapers. The larger paper publishes the police report which precipitated “don’t name” discussion. Allegedly the “standard” is to publish race if it is relevant to apprehending that particular perpetrator.

Reminded me, about ten years ago, there was a lot of heat and demonstrations about the number of young black males being arrested and jailed. After a few weeks the police dept published the stats from the “raw” police reports. For murder, armed robbery, rape and aggravated assault, ~87% AA. No more protests after that. I suspect that now the percentage is closer to 90% AA for those crimes. So, at least in my area, publishing “race” is an oxy-moron.

“Geithner was on NBC and when discussing the massively overdue S&P downgrade of US debt, shared the following pearl of wisdom: “S&P decision to cut U.S. credit rating shows stunning lack of knowledge about basic U.S. fiscal budget math.” Listen to Tim: when it comes to stunning lacks of knowledge about things, Tim is the absolute expert, although in his case it is mostly the US tax code.”

///////

Mrs S. Re: Axelbutt excuses….

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Looks like the babysitters can’t blame Bush for the credit deflation….so they are trying to cover Berry’s butt again, and only coma patients will believe it.

The wtpotus site is jam packed with detailseals.. Don’t let it go by before first reading it and reviewing the pics of the Seal Team (God rest their blessed Souls) Remember when everyone was upset when Obama went to visit them to shake their hands because their identities would be revealed?
________________________

I’m putting it out there to take a minute and look at the facts: (from the above link)

The Execution of SEAL Team Six (Part 2)

Ann Barnhardt – August 6, 2011

August 6, 2011: A Chinook helo is shot down in Tangi, Wardak Province, Afghanistan. Within hours, before family notifications could possibly have been completed, global press accounts positively confirm that 22 of the 30 Americans killed were not just SEALS, but members of SEAL Team 6. Again, DEVGRU operations have been, up until now, highly classified. Today, the Obama regime made a point of immediately revealing the unit identities of the SPECOPS forces among the dead.

In the past, DEVGRU men and other SPECOPS men have been killed in action, but their missions were so secret and so crucial to OPSEC that their deaths were covered-up by the government and attributed to such things as “training accidents” and the like – and I have no problem with that. These men understand going in to intense units such as DEVGRU that OPSEC is paramount, that they will never be publicly acknowledged for their heroism, and that if they are killed or captured in action, the government will lie about that in order to protect OPSEC and to prevent the enemy from gaining a propaganda and morale coup. Compare that reality with what happened today. The Obama regime distributed this information, and the Obama regime’s lapdog press instantly splashed headlines declaring this as the Taliban’s “REVENGE” for the “death of Bin Laden.” As I write this now, the Drudge Report headline in bright red reads, “REVENGE: SEALS WHO GOT OSAMA KILLED IN AFGHANISTAN.”

I’ll say what everyone else is thinking but is too scared to say. The Obama regime is almost certainly directly complicit in these deaths. The time, location and most especially, the PASSENGERS in the Chinook were passed to the Taliban. Additionally, you can’t take out a Chinook with small arms fire or even standard RPGs such as the Taliban use. The Taliban needed serious weaponry to take this helo down, and that serious weaponry needed to be in exactly the right spot at exactly the right time, ready to fire.

Why would the Obama regime kill Americans? I think the question is, why WOULDN’T the Obama regime kill Americans? The Obama regime is composed of Marxist-Leninist psychopaths. A glancing, superficial survey of 20th century history shows one glaring fact above all others:

MARXISTS MURDER PEOPLE WITHOUT COMPUNCTION.
Marxists also hate Americans, by definition.

Three tacks:

1. The men on board the Chinook may have been some of the same men who participated or had direct knowledge of the staged Bin Laden raid and were killed to permanently silence them.

2. These DEVGRU men were killed to send a signal to the surviving DEVGRU men who carried out the Bin Laden raid to keep their mouths shut.

3. Certainly, the release of the unit identity of the dead within hours – before even family notification could have been made (which requires an IN PERSON visit to the family, remember) was an obvious bow to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the entire muslim world. This event was INSTANTLY propagandized by the Obama media as “revenge” exacted for Bin Laden’s death. And remember, Bin Laden has been dead for many years. The raid of May 2 was pure stagecraft to distract the world from the release of the forged Obama birth certificate.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I can’t stand Alex Jones or any 9/11 truther. I have turned down dozens of interviews with such types. In fact, I am a huge believer in the Lex Parsimoniae, which is sometimes called “Occam’s Razor”, which states that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. I teach this as part of my job, namely that the cattle markets are neither manipulated nor impossible to operate within at a profit. The reality is that the cattle industry participants do not make money because they are functionally incompetent. It is very, very simple. True conspiracies are very rare.

This entire Obama situation is a conspiracy, and I say that without the slightest hesitation. Obama is not a citizen of the United States, he is a puppet front for a cabal of Marxist-Leninsts including Soros, Ayers, Dohrn, Strong, Jarrett and many, many others. These people are enemies of the United States. These people are deeply psychologically damaged, and are capable of ordering people murdered in order to protect themselves and increase their own power. The three dead homosexual black men from Trinity United Church of Christ, Young, Bland and Spencer, all of whom were sexually linked to Barack Obama, were probably the first people specifically murdered by the Obama regime. The hundreds of Mexicans and the two American agents Terry and Zapata were murdered by Operation Fast and Furious in order to advance and increase the power of the Obama regime. These SEALS and the others on board that Chinook today were almost certainly betrayed and murdered by the Obama regime.

Why did the Obama regime immediately reveal the unit identity of the SPECOPS forces involved in the first place, despite the fact that DEVGRU was highly classified? Why was the personnel composition of the Chinook released IMMEDIATELY today after the helo went down – before even family notifications could be made? WHY? Why would you hand your enemy, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, a massive propaganda coup? WHY?

I’ll tell you why. Because the Obama regime IS THE ENEMY. They are Marxist tyrants who hold the lives of Americans not just cheap, but in scathing contempt. They will say anything, they will do anything, and they will murder ANYONE in order to protect themselves and consolidate and increase their power. Please, I beg you, for the love of God and all that is good in this world, read the history of the Soviet Union. Read about Lenin and Stalin and how they murdered people without any hesitation. Read about how Hitler was constantly ordering the murder of his own officers. Read about Communist China. Read about Mao and the millions upon tens of millions of murders he ordered. Read about the killing fields of the Communist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia led by Pol Pot. PLEASE. Marxists MURDER PEOPLE. That is what they do. The Obama regime is MARXIST to the bone. If the Obama regime is not stopped, the 30 Americans murdered today in Afghanistan will be just the beginning. I promise you that.

Here, again, is the clip of Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated the Weather Underground Marxist terrorist organization in the 1970s. The Weather Underground was founded by Obama’s political godfather, communist mentor (along with Frank Marshall Davis), murderer, and ghostwriter of “Dreams From My Father”, Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn.

In this interview, taped in 1980 while Obama was still just an unknown undergrad foreign scholarship student at Occidental College, Grathwohl describes the leadership of the Weather Underground (which is Ayers and Dohrn) discussing what will be done with the “unreformable, diehard capitalists” once they have overthrown the government of the United States. The answer is extermination in camps in the Southwest. The estimated total that would need to be killed? 25 million, which was 10% of the population at the time. Ayers & Dohrn already have overthrown the government of the United States via their puppet protégé, Barack Obama. They have guaranteed that the economy will collapse. The only thing left for them to do is suspend the Constitution and open the camps. I’ll see you there.

Remember when everyone was upset when Obama went to visit [the Pakistan raid Seals] to shake their hands because their identities would be revealed?

======================

That was the usual Obamaboobery: grab publicity without thinking of consequences.

As for the rest of the article: baroque tinfoil. Summarizing it: Bin Laden was dead for years. The Pakistan raid was phony, to coincide with Obama’s bc announcement. (Couldn’t possibly have been the other way around.) Obama then got secret info to give the Taliban to get this copter shot down, and announced it to give the Taliban a propoganda victory. Obama wanted to assassinate the heroic Seals lest they tell What Really Happened(tm).

So far, Turndown has attacked every Puma posting here in an effort to disqualify and undermine their posts.

I have to ask, why would a supposedly Puma team member be so contrary to what the Pumas and friends of Pumas are discussing even to the point of feigning concerns like this: “Yeah, right. Just what PUMA credibility needs.”

When she is the most prolific offender of what she accuses others of doing?

The one thing I might say is that we shouldn’t really wonder what happened to Obama — he is who he always was. If you paid attention to what he actually said during the primary and the election, he was always a very conventional centrist. Progressives who flocked to his campaign basically deluded themselves, mistaking style for substance. I got huge flack for saying that at the time, but it was true, and events have borne it out.

Mrs. Smith
August 7th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
The wtpotus site is jam packed with detailseals.. Don’t let it go by before first reading it and reviewing the pics of the Seal Team (God rest their blessed Souls)
[ from the article: ]
The men on board the Chinook may have been some of the same men who participated or had direct knowledge of the staged Bin Laden raid and were killed to permanently silence them.
[….]
And remember, Bin Laden has been dead for many years. The raid of May 2 was pure stagecraft to distract the world from the release of the forged Obama birth certificate.

================

So the SEAL blessed souls staged a raid they knew was “pure stagecraft” when they pretended to get bin Laden?

I just ignore all of her posts when I stop by to read the comments.
__________________________

Yes, that fact had been alluded to earlier. So, I will leave it at that. On another matter- Obama NEVER was a centrist. He catered to the Left until he got elected and now that the Left has finally seen the light, he is playing to the center hoping to draw the Indys and centrists from both sides for his re-election. Krugman was an Obama defender from the get-go. Always giving him published advise and above all, making excuses for his statements and decision making. Good to know Krugman is still on the Kool-aid. Krugman pushing him as always been a centrist is pure poppycock.

“And we are already defaulting, not a technical default, printing more money to pay bills, internationally or nationally, is a default.”
=====================
turndownobama: “Well, there you go saying “default” again.”
**********

Printing new money in 1930 Germany could actually be seen as a slow-motion or incremental default, as it reduced the debt itself by simply decreasing the value of the money used to pay the debt.

But Germany, like any other country except the US, had the power to print money.

In the US Federal Reserve system, it is the private Federal Reserve that prints new money and issues it on loan to the government, thus increasing the debt, and the government has to pay back interest on that loan. So any new money injected into the economy just pushes up the debt and increases the strain on the government to pay it off.

Dubya’s neocon theorists said that this ‘strain’ could go on forever, that there would never be a breaking point (default). Apparently, Waffles’ experts feel the same way.

But even if the neocons and Waffles people are right, the aggregate effect of increasing the money supply has some of the same effects as in Germany, mainly devaluation of the currency. The dollar is, in effect, declining visibly week by week against other currencies that remain, relatively, unaffected by the current sluggish world economy.

This devaluation should make our exports cheaper and imports more expensive, and thereby improve our trade balance. But then the corollary comes into play, which is that foreign demand for our goods and services is actually evaporating because we have not been investing wisely in future-safe products and services over the past decade and, on Waffles watch, this asset creation has been virtually non-existent. So we are losing out on the trade balance too, mainly to the BRIC countries and Europe.

End 2008 early 2009, virtually all economists were calling for a stimulus to support demand. That stimulus should have been used for asset creation and we wouldn’t be in the position we are now. But it evaporated into thin air. No one knows where the money went. Then Waffles wanted more, a stimulus 2. Now he wants more. It’s all a waste because no one on the Waffles team has any economic or even business sense, who knows or cares what Waffles himself thinks.

China is jumping in with both feet hoping to promote greater instability in the dollar than there actually is:
_____________________________________

Dollar to Be ‘Discarded’ by World: China Rating Agency

The man who leads one of China’s top rating agencies says the greenback’s status as the world’s reserve currency is set to wane as the world’s most powerful policy makers convene to examine the implication of S&P’s decision to strip the United States of its triple “A” rating.

The United States “should get a clear understanding that the continuous decline of the debt service capability will inevitably result in the outbreak of a sovereign debt crisis.”

Guan Jianzhong
Chairman, Dagong Global Credit Rating

In comments emailed to CNBC, Guan Jianzhong, chairman of Dagong Global Credit Rating, said the currency is “gradually discarded by the world,” and the “process will be irreversible.”

Lightly annotated, here is the text associated with a link I submitted further up this thread:

Why Is Obama So Clueless About the Tea Party?
By Liz Peek Published August 06, 2011 | FoxNews.com

How can community activist President Obama continually underestimate the Tea Party? Mr. Obama celebrated his ability to clean up asbestos from public housing as a young organizer; why is he blind to the growing power of Tea Party activists who are trying to clean up our country’s balance sheet?
In the recent debate on raising the debt ceiling, the president completely dismissed the influence of the Tea Party. He ignored the pledge signed by some 236 House Republicans and 41 GOP senators sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform – an organization sympathetic to the Tea Party — vowing to not raise taxes or to sanction tax reforms that would result in higher revenues. The president continued to grandstand about a “balanced approach” that would include higher taxes even as he and his improbable proposals were ultimately relegated to the sidelines.
One thing is clear: the Tea Party won the debt ceiling skirmish and changed the nation’s discourse. The movement shifted the country’s focus to cutting spending and restoring our country’s fiscal health – a stunning volte face for our indulgent body politic. You have to wonder, when will Mr. Obama take the Tea Party seriously?
The tea leaves have not been hard to read. Consider: the most earth-shaking election in years vaulted Scott Brown into “Ted Kennedy’s” senate seat, representing a state so blue that Pantone could adopt it for color-coding. Under the heading “GOP Victory Stuns Democrats” the New York Times wrote, “the election of a man supported by the Tea Party movement also represented an unexpected reproach by many voters to President Obama after his first year in office, and struck fear into the hearts of Democratic lawmakers, who are already worried about their prospects in the midterm elections later this year.”
Fast forward to those midterm elections, when the GOP picked up 6 senate seats, 63 House seats and 5 governorships. It was, by any definition, a landslide – and a massive repudiation of President Obama’s first *two* years in office. It was also heavily influenced by the Tea Party.
The president has been slow to catch onto the Tea Party tsunami. It may be that his friends in the media have helped his “willful disbelief.” Since February 19, 2009, when CNBC’s Rick Santelli issued his now-famous rant on nationwide TV against Obama’s big spending programs and encouraged others to turn out for a Chicago tea party, the networks have underplayed the rising movement.
In all of 2009, as the Tea Party spawned thousands of gatherings across the country protesting ballooning government outlays and ObamaCare, network TV ran just 19 stories or segments about the new group, according to a study by the Media Research Center. Imagine. A new political movement gains stride, and steals a Massachusetts senate seat, and is virtually ignored by network TV.
When the media did finally happen upon this new political tide, it derided its backers as thugs and racists. MSNBC’s Keith Olberman described Tea Partiers as “a bunch of guys who are just looking for a reason to yell at a black president.” President Obama [also] adopted this narrative, perhaps blinding himself to the political threat [to his policies that] the movement contained. In April 2009, asked about the thousands of protests taking place on tax day around the nation, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs said “I don’t know if the president is aware of the events.” Soon thereafter, White House advisor David Axelrod explained the demonstrations saying “I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that’s unhealthy.”
In a September 2010 interview in Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Obama describes “some aspects of the Tea Party that are a little darker, that have to do with anti-immigrant sentiment or are troubled by what I represent as the president.”
It was finally (and surprisingly) the New York Times that ventured forth to record who was actually turning up at Tea Party rallies. They were shocked (and no doubt dismayed) to find the protesters “wealthier and more educated” than the general public, laying to rest the myth that the movement was spawned by skinheads and wing-nuts.
The surprise is that Mr. Obama and his political colleagues have been so disrespectful of the Tea Party….
—————
My two cents on the Seal tragedy. Perhaps the victory as perceived by the Taliban is symbolic in the manner that “a S.E.A.L. is a S.E.A.L. is ….”

Mrs. Smith: “Germany using it’s own printed money to pay off it’s debt. Didn’t Lincoln do something similar when the War was over? Creating a new currency for absolving the debt created by the war?”
_____________

You’re right; just remember that, in Lincoln’s time it was the Federal Government, and not the Federal Reserve, that printed the money. Since Wilson, it is the Fed Res that prints money and lends it to the Fed Govt.

At a New York political event last week, Republican and Democratic office-holders were all bemoaning President Obama’s handling of the debt-ceiling crisis when someone said, “Hillary would have been a better president.”

“Every single person nodded, including the Republicans,” reported one observer.

Related Stories
Conservatives for Obama?
Tea Party’s Next Targets

At a luncheon in the members’ dining room at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Saturday, a 64-year-old African-American from the Bronx was complaining about Obama’s ineffectiveness in dealing with the implacable hostility of congressional Republicans when an 80-year-old lawyer chimed in about the president’s unwillingness to stand up to his opponents. “I want to see blood on the floor,” she said grimly.

A 61-year-old white woman at the table nodded. “He never understood about the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy,'” she said.

Looking as if she were about to cry, an 83-year-old Obama supporter shook her head. “I’m so disappointed in him,” she said. “It’s true: Hillary is tougher.”

During the last few days, the whispers have swelled to an angry chorus of frustration about Obama’s perceived weaknesses. Many Democrats are furious and heartbroken at how ineffectual he seemed in dealing with Republican opponents over the debt ceiling, and liberals are particularly incensed by what they see as his capitulation to conservatives on fundamental liberal principles.

In Connecticut, a businessman who raised money for Obama in 2008 said, “I’m beyond disgusted.” In New Jersey, a teacher reported that even her friends in the Obama administration are grievously disillusioned with his lack of leadership-and many have begun to whisper about a Democratic challenge for the 2012 presidential nomination. “I think people are furtively hoping that Hillary runs,” she said.

The son of a longtime Democratic congressman from Texas, a 73-year-old lawyer is so enraged with Obama that he’s threatening not to vote for the 2012 Democratic ticket-the first time in his entire life that he’s contemplated such apostasy.

Among many of the 18 million Americans who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, the reaction is simple and bitter: “We told you so.”

On Real Time With Bill Maher, the host said that as far as he was concerned, Obama might as well be a Republican, and added that he thought last week represented the tipping point in Obama’s presidency. Wondering if liberals have “buyer’s remorse” about Obama, Maher asked his panel whether Clinton would have been a better president.

“Yes,” replied astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, adding that Clinton would have been “a more effective negotiator in the halls of Congress.”

“She knows how to deal with difficult men,” Maher agreed.

In recent days, political conversations from inside the Beltway to office water coolers all over America have abounded with unflattering comparisons between Obama and President Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Capitol Hill veteran who was a master of knocking heads to get things done. A Texas Democrat, Johnson served as a representative, a senator, the Senate minority leader, the Senate majority whip, and vice president before becoming president when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. “Unlike Obama, he knew how to work the system,” said one political reporter.

In his New York Times Sunday Review essay “What Happened to Obama?” Emory University psychology professor Drew Westen summed up the president’s lack of experience with devastating succinctness.

“Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he occasionally, as a state senator in Illinois, voted ‘present’ on difficult issues,” wrote Westen, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.
_______________________

You really get no sympathy from me, and I don’t understand why you think she should save this mess, when you treated her so badly.

What we do know is Obama is as devious as they come. Capable of more than we think possible or can even imagine.

Barnhardt says, Obama used the purported killing of Bin Laden as a diversionary tactic because Jerome Corsi’s about to be released book containing factual evidence (circumstantial) was hitting the book shelves any moment discrediting Obama as a nbc. Obama’s quick release of his LFBC was obviously just a perfunctory attempt at giving credence to his assertions he is a nbc.

I think Obama was shocked when the LFBC was unraveled easily by computer geeks as a hoax. And their added admonishments to whoever did the job ( WH staff ) was surprisingly less than qualified to perform the task.

The fact remains Obama had barely averted the “WOO”- The window opened wide by Trump’s constant harping on “where’s the BC” and why can’t we see it?

The Window Of Opportunity had passed. Trump had been neutralized, his voice silenced by whatever means… Blaring headlines of the Bin Laden Kill flooded the airways for 3 weeks and next, headlines thanking the S.E.A.L.S…..

Obama getting a slight albeit short lived bump in the polls. Obama cruised on until the looming Debt Crisis sucked all of the oxygen out of room. Threatening SS and Medi-care.. So here we are now new topic for discussion: Rating downgrade and the Chinese.

FWIW- I believe, it is possible the killing was staged. My father’s money was well spent dealing with a dyslexic child. At the time Public education couldn’t deal w/dyslexics. Dad hired the best private tutors who taught me how to ‘think’ rather than focusing on just spelling words correctly. What they taught me was when you’re not sure of something… “wait” and that is the key word..wait… until indisputable facts fall to one side or the other. And why I like keeping my options open until definitive proof proving one way or the other surfaces. Because to date… it’s all in the ‘air’ ( just talk and theater ) that he was killed- where are the pictures of the Corpus Delicti? It’s all hearsay that he was killed. And it appears Obama’s cabinet was kept in the dark as well because they all agreed the pictures of Obama’s killing however graphic, should be released. It hasn’t happened and I doubt to date they have even seen these purported pictures and if they have there wasn’t dna evidence provided to back up the pictures as being authentic. Not that I’ve heard of anyway. We need researchers like Barnhardt. She is invaluable.

I prefer hearing both sides of the story and I will not discount Barnhardt’s research as “nonsense” because no one has provided indisputable evidence otherwise.

“You really get no sympathy from me, and I don’t understand why you think she should save this mess, when you treated her so badly.”
__________________

Simple answer? It is her DESTINY! Sounds hoaky (sp), I know. We should all know why we were born and what we were put here to do. Most of us don’t. The thing that feels right to me (for myself) is to do whatever it takes to help Hillary achieve her destiny, the White House.

Don’t forget, times have changed since 08′. It was all about a woman being elected breaking a glass ceiling. It’s much more than that now. It’s about an urgent need to have the most qualified person we know in charge of the country who can SAVE this country from total destruction. The mistaken voters who voted for Obama for any other reason than ‘qualifications’ have realized their mistake and have made a giant step admitting their mistake.

And besides, Hillary knew going in it would be a risky up hill battle. She is tough enough to let whatever the naysayers have said to roll off her back and not affect her self-confidence because smart people know when they hear baloney… it’s all BALONEY and move on and never look back! Looking backwards serves no purpose and is self defeating if dwelt upon.

I say, GO-HILLARY go! We need you NOW more than ever.. we’re ready to back you all the way, if you are!

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.. (I don;t know who said it but it fits.) 🙂

So the SEAL blessed souls staged a raid they knew was “pure stagecraft” when they pretended to get bin Laden?

Yeah, right.

—————–

It seems to me that Barnhardt does address that problem near the end of her “Part 1”:

“May 2, 2011: The Bin Laden operation occurs. In all likelihood, a low-to-mid level Taliban or insurgent leader is killed.”

The SEAL team would have had no thoughts of stagecraft; they would have been carrying out yet another mission. How the men who carried out that mission would feel about having been used by Obummer and friends in a fantasy story to boost Obummer’s poll numbers is another question. Seems there would be a lot of military folks, spanning all ranks, very upset as the truth seeped out regarding how they were being used in the news.

Sounds like something Oblunder would come up with, come to think of it.

Mrs. Smith, Your 9:10 recap was delightful. No argument from this source that “Obama is as devious as they come,” so no matter how hard people such as those here work to expose him, and do so successfully, I fear his re-election is entirely possible. For instance, right now he is in the process of distorting, then destroying the tea party movement. As you know, he has equated it with that terrible Washington gridlock. I took several hours yesterday to prepare a 3 page 6-sided Word document about that, plus another pitch against illegal immigration … then a quick supplement from gateway about both axlerod and kerry being on Sunday shows throwing blame for the downgrade on the tea party movement. Unfortunately my mailing group will be swayed by this.

Cutting to the chase: I know Obama is capable of morphing a creation of “We The People” into something generations of voters have wanted changed. He is nasty. Creepy. Surreal. Evil.

The insurer AIG is suing Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) to recover more than $10 billion of losses from a “massive fraud” on mortgage debt, deepening the morass of litigation faced by the largest U.S. bank.

American International Group Inc (AIG.N), still largely owned by taxpayers after $182.3 billion of government bailouts, is the latest of a growing number of investors filing lawsuits to hold banks responsible for losses on soured mortgages that contributed to the financial crisis.

The AIG complaint accuses Bank of America and its Countrywide and Merrill Lynch units of misrepresenting the quality of mortgages placed in securities and sold to investors. AIG said it suffered its losses on $28 billion of investments.

“Defendants were engaged in a massive scheme to manipulate and deceive investors, like AIG, who had no alternative but to rely on the lies and omissions made,” said the complaint, being filed in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Bank of America bought Countrywide for $2.5 billion in July 2008 and acquired Merrill six months later. The Countrywide acquisition is almost universally considered a disaster because of the costs of litigation and writing down bad loans.

“There is going to be more finger-pointing and mortgage litigation,” said Michael Mullaney, who helps oversee $9.5 billion at Fiduciary Trust Co in Boston, which has sold nearly all its Bank of America stock. “Much of it is well deserved, especially related to Countrywide, which turned out to be a sinking ship.”

In morning trading, Bank of America shares were down 7 percent at $7.60, while AIG shares were down 2.2 percent at $24.55. Most financial stocks were down following the Standard & Poor’s downgrade of the United States’ long-term debt rating.

Bank of America rejected the AIG allegations.

“AIG recklessly chased high yields and profits throughout the mortgage and structured finance markets,” spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said. “It is the very definition of an informed, seasoned investor, with losses solely attributable to its own excesses and errors. We reject its assertions and allegations.”

In a statement, AIG said it expects to file more lawsuits against other banks that “sought to profit at our expense.”

Separately, AIG plans to intervene in Bank of America’s $8.5 billion agreement in late June to end most litigation by investors, including BlackRock Inc (BLK.N) and Allianz SE’s (ALVG.DE) Pimco, that bought securities backed by risky Countrywide home loans, according to a person familiar with the matter. The source was not authorized to speak on the plans.

A growing number of investors has called the payout too low and say Bank of New York Mellon Corp (BK.N) as trustee did not negotiate fairly. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is moving to block that accord.

The case is American International Group Inc v. Bank of America Corp et al, New York State Supreme Court, New York County.

Thanks, Basil- I think the point has been made and driven home. Gratefully, we are all in agreement and are on the same page.
___________________________

holdthemaccountable
August 8th, 2011 at 10:06 am

Admire your ambition for spending the time for writing a six sided document to send out to your friends list. Send it out anyway- Who cares what Kerry says- in the end, the T-Party has Sarah Palin to knock down those guys and put them in their place. All she has to do is remind everyone, it was Kerry who initially introduced Obama to us as a great orator and spotlighted him as future presidential material at the DNC convention. He’s could ( embellishment, but thinking embellishment )be held responsible for what is happening to us today because of his firm recommendation.. Hola!

What does Kerry know anyway? Follow him at your peril and fall off a cliff just like he did after the election ! 🙂

OY, BOA- another lawsuit? I’m glad I stepped into the bank last Friday to have a word with the mgr. As of 01/11 they started charging $25/mo for using their ck acct. And having that on my long To Do list, I hadn’t done anything about it yet.. After 5 min speaking to the mgr., he removed the fee and refunded all the back charges plus Int… and said there won’t be anymore charges on the cking acct from here on in- They have had so many law suits against them lately, the price of doing any future busness with them is, well, at best, iffy-

House Speaker John Boehner and several other prominent members of Congress want Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to quit or be fired.

But Geithner, who had considered stepping down after the government borrowing limit was raised, confirmed on Sunday that he will remain at his post at President Barack Obama’s request.

“I love my work. And I think if a president asks you to serve, you have to do it,” Geithner told NBC/CNBC in an interview.

With the U.S. unemployment rate above nine percent and the economy still scarred by crisis, “we still have a lot of work to do”, he added.

Geithner had indicated he might leave after a debt-ceiling increase was approved, partly because his family was returning to New York, where his son is planning to attend his final year of high school this autumn.

But administration officials had signaled that both Obama and White House chief of staff William Daley had urged him not to leave now.

Boehner has called on Geithner to step down before, but an aide to the Ohio Republican told The Hill Saturday morning that the speaker really wants Geithner to leave in the wake of Standard and Poor’s downgrading of the U.S. credit rating from AAA to AA+.

Also demanding Geithner’s ouster is Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who issued a statement saying: “The president should demand that Secretary Geithner resign and immediately replace him with someone who will help Washington focus on balancing our budget and allowing the private sector to create jobs.

“For months he opposed all efforts to reduce the debt in return for a debt ceiling increase. His opposition to serious spending and debt reforms has been reckless and now the American people will pay the price,” DeMint said.

Editor’s Note: Some experts fear that 50% unemployment, a 90% stock market crash, and 100% inflation are on the horizon. Watch the Aftershock Survival Summit Now, See the Evidence.

Echoing him is Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a co-founder with DeMint of the Senate Tea Party Caucus. “We must get new leadership, and put in place people who have seen problems coming and offered credible solutions, rather than those who continue to misdiagnose and mismanage our economy,” Paul said Saturday.

Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who founded the House Tea Party Caucus and is running for the GOP nomination for president, told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren: “I call on the president to seek the immediate resignation of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and to submit a plan with his list of cuts to balance the budget this year, turn the economy around and put our people back to work.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., and businessman Herman Cain, both presidential contenders and Tea Party favorites, have also called for Geithner’s resignation.

Geithner has faced calls to resign before. Republican lawmakers wanted him to leave in 2009 for what they deemed as a poor response to the deep recession following the 2008 financial crisis. He faced more calls last year amid a congressional investigation into the AIG bailout for decisions he made in his previous position as head of the New York Federal Reserve that may have led to banks getting billions more than necessary.

The White House on Saturday blamed the bruising months-long battle in Congress to raise the debt ceiling for the downgrade. But administration officials also dispute the S&P analysis, saying it overstated U.S. debt by $2 trillion.

Mrs. Smith, I wish.
Sarah is not admired by this group, so she will not be at all helpful. As for Kerry, perhaps he will be a turnoff to them, but only for the fact that he was a doofus in 2004. They will have not a clue about his influence since then.
These are women between the ages 83 – 90. They are upset to see their lifelines threatened but have not the depth of understanding due both to their lack of computer access and the reality that doctors’ visits and therapy use up much of their time.
Chances are fair that half them will not live to see November 2012.
Sometimes I think I should just leave them alone. But I cannot.

Standard & Poor’s historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is an attempt to bring adult oversight to the political squabbling over out-of-control government spending. But rather than “eating his peas,” President Obama is throwing a tantrum.

The day after the S&P action, the White House took aim at the messenger. Administration officials launched a blistering attack on the agency’s integrity, accusing S&P of employing flawed methodologies and making basic math errors in its analysis. When the bureau acknowledged and corrected one of the problems, chief White House economic advisor Gene Sperling pounced, saying that the credit downgrade “smacked of an institution starting with a conclusion and shaping any arguments to fit it.”

Well, look who’s talking. A review of White House budget proposals from 2009 to present reveals a series of long-term economic assumptions that torture credulity in service of Mr. Obama’s big-government agenda.

According to the fiscal 2010 budget proposal, released in February 2009 and modestly entitled “A New Era of Responsibility,” prosperity was just around the corner. The projected gross domestic product for 2009 was almost zero, but in 2010 the Obama administration foresaw 3.43 percent growth, followed by 5.23 percent in 2011 and an astonishing 6.26 percent in 2012. By 2015, this would level out to a comparatively modest but objectively unrealistic 4.45 percent, which was the default assumption out to 2019. These growth dreams were laughable. Without credible rationale, the White House posited that the U.S. economy would grow at a record pace for almost 20 years. This red-hot growth projection was necessary, however, to justify and cover the record levels of government spending Mr. Obama was planning.

White House long-term deficit projections were wrongly rosy as well. According to Mr. Obama’s first budget, the projected $1.2 trillion deficit for 2010 would be sliced in half to $533 billion by 2013. This red ink would creep slowly up to $712 billion by the end of the decade but would still be around 3 percent of the mammoth projected GDP.

Two years later, the economy isn’t producing the benefits Mr. Obama promised. Growth has been anemic rather than robust, and deficits have skyrocketed rather than receded. Never mind, the fiscal 2012 budget proposal gives the impression that everything is going according to plan. The administration still projects almost 4 percent growth this year, when most economists who aren’t in Mr. Obama’s employ predict 1 percent to 2 percent growth. The Obama budget predicts the economy will surge in the out years, growing between 4.36 percent and 6.15 percent per year for the rest of the decade. And through some inexplicable numerical magic, the projected yearly deficits for the period after 2017 are even lower than the absurd numbers offered in the 2010 budget. These outlandish figures are an insult to the national intelligence.

The projected job impact of the budget-busting “stimulus” plan, issued two weeks before Mr. Obama took office, is another important document revealing the haplessness of White House economic assumptions. According to this study, the unemployment rate with the stimulus plan in the third quarter of 2011 was supposed to be 6.5 percent, instead of the current 9.1 percent. Doing nothing would have yielded 7.7 percent unemployment. Even by their own economic estimates, doing nothing would have been better for America than what the Democrats did.

The White House’s baloney growth and deficit projections are the type of politically motivated numbers that caused S&P to question the ability of the United States to end its orgy of deficit spending. Rather than waging political war on the ratings agency, the White House should come clean and submit a budget proposal with honest assumptions that better reflect the damage Mr. Obama has wrought on the economy.

“Sometimes I think I should just leave them alone. But I cannot.”
___________________

A personal visit would do the trick or send a representative in their area representing you to carry the message. Make sure they bring pastry and goodies with them. Sugarfree and low sodium treats can pave the way to caring acceptance of your valuable time spent typing your message. There may even be a ‘pet person’ who visits them regularly that could help out as an alternate. It’s worth a try..

It seems to me that Barnhardt does address that problem near the end of her “Part 1″:

“May 2, 2011: The Bin Laden operation occurs. In all likelihood, a low-to-mid level Taliban or insurgent leader is killed.”

——–
I am still pondering the Barnhardt articles, and one of the things that bugs me, among the obvious, is that Hillary is in that photo with the group listening/watching what was going on. If it’s a hoax, that means she is in on it???
That doesn’t settle well with me, that if it were a scam, that she hasn’t spoken up about it.

(Reuters) – Ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service on Monday warned it might also downgrade the U.S. government’s credit rating if its planned measures to reduce its budget deficit turned out to be not “credible” after all.

(AP) – State and local education officials have been begging the federal government for relief from student testing mandates in the federal No Child Left Behind law, but school starts soon and Congress still hasn’t answered the call.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan says he will announce a new waiver system Monday to give schools a break.

NewMexicoFan
August 8th, 2011 at 8:55 am
Got this from a friend that I know voted for O. Too Little Too late. Why should be take on this mess, which s getting worse by the day.
__________________________

At a New York political event last week, Republican and Democratic office-holders were all bemoaning President Obama’s handling of the debt-ceiling crisis when someone said, “Hillary would have been a better president.”

“Every single person nodded, including the Republicans,” reported one observer.

At a luncheon in the members’ dining room at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Saturday, a 64-year-old African-American from the Bronx was complaining about Obama’s ineffectiveness in dealing with the implacable hostility of congressional Republicans when an 80-year-old lawyer chimed in about the president’s unwillingness to stand up to his opponents. “I want to see blood on the floor,” she said grimly.

A 61-year-old white woman at the table nodded. “He never understood about the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy,’” she said.

Looking as if she were about to cry, an 83-year-old Obama supporter shook her head. “I’m so disappointed in him,” she said. “It’s true: Hillary is tougher.”

During the last few days, the whispers have swelled to an angry chorus of frustration about Obama’s perceived weaknesses. Many Democrats are furious and heartbroken at how ineffectual he seemed in dealing with Republican opponents over the debt ceiling, and liberals are particularly incensed by what they see as his capitulation to conservatives on fundamental liberal principles.

In Connecticut, a businessman who raised money for Obama in 2008 said, “I’m beyond disgusted.” In New Jersey, a teacher reported that even her friends in the Obama administration are grievously disillusioned with his lack of leadership—and many have begun to whisper about a Democratic challenge for the 2012 presidential nomination. “I think people are furtively hoping that Hillary runs,” she said.

The son of a longtime Democratic congressman from Texas, a 73-year-old lawyer, is so enraged with Obama that he’s threatening not to vote for the 2012 Democratic ticket—the first time in his entire life that he’s contemplated such apostasy.

Among many of the 18 million Americans who supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, the reaction is simple and bitter: “We told you so.”

On Real Time With Bill Maher, the host said that as far as he was concerned, Obama might as well be a Republican, and added that he thought last week represented the tipping point in Obama’s presidency. Wondering if liberals have “buyer’s remorse” about Obama, Maher asked his panel whether Clinton would have been a better president.

“Yes,” replied astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium, adding that Clinton would have been “a more effective negotiator in the halls of Congress.”

“She knows how to deal with difficult men,” Maher agreed.

Among Clinton fans, particularly older women, the language was frequently far more caustic. “Obama has no spine and no balls,” said a 67-year-old New Yorker.

In recent days, political conversations from inside the Beltway to office water coolers all over America have abounded with unflattering comparisons between Obama and President Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Capitol Hill veteran who was a master of knocking heads to get things done. A Texas Democrat, Johnson served as a representative, a senator, the Senate minority leader, the Senate majority whip, and vice president before becoming president when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. “Unlike Obama, he knew how to work the system,” said one political reporter.

In his New York Times Sunday Review essay “What Happened to Obama?” Emory University psychology professor Drew Westen summed up the president’s lack of experience with devastating succinctness.

“Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he occasionally, as a state senator in Illinois, voted ‘present’ on difficult issues,” wrote Westen, author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

The presidential scholar Matthew Dickinson went even further with a post under the headline “Run, Hillary, Run!” on the blog Presidential Power. “She did warn you,” Dickinson reminded his readers.

“Remember that 3 a.m. phone call? Remember the warning about the rose-colored petals falling from the sky? Remember about learning on the job? Sure you do. Doesn’t a part of you, deep down, realize she was right?” wrote Dickinson, a political-science professor at Middlebury College. “If I heard it once this last week, I heard it a thousand times: You were duped by Obama’s rhetoric—the whole ‘hopey-changey’ thing. And you wanted to be part of history, too—to help break down the ultimate racial barrier. That’s OK. We were all young once. But now it’s time to elect someone who can play hardball, who understands how to be ruthless, who will be a real … uh … tough negotiator in office. There won’t be any debate about Hillary’s, er, ‘man-package.’”

Among Clinton fans, particularly older women, the language was frequently far more caustic. “Obama has no spine and no balls,” said a 67-year-old New Yorker.

Other observers contrasted the president’s declining popularity with Clinton’s widely acclaimed performance as secretary of State. “To be blunt, her resume outshines the incumbent’s,” wrote Dickinson, noting that Clinton’s approval rating is close to 70 percent while Obama’s is around 40 percent.

Such polls notwithstanding, insiders insist that Clinton will not challenge her president for the 2012 nomination, and many pundits dismiss the idea as political suicide. “A challenge from Clinton would be a complete disaster, both for her and for the Democrats,” wrote Jon Bernstein on the Plain Blog political site.

Political experts point out that Republicans’ hatred of the Clintons in the 1990s was just as virulent as their efforts to destroy Obama’s presidency in the last couple of years. Longtime analysts also remember the carnage that ensued when Sen. Ted Kennedy challenged President Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination, fracturing the party and paving the way for Ronald Reagan’s election. Four years earlier, Reagan himself had challenged an incumbent Republican, President Gerald Ford; Reagan lost the nomination, Ford lost the presidency, and Carter was elected.

However unlikely a Democratic challenger might seem at present, Obama would be foolish not to heed the deep dissatisfaction represented by such speculation, which is now spreading like an ominous brush fire. Given the abundance of devastating economic news lately, he would also do well to remember the Clintons’ rallying cry from the 1992 election.

“There’s no question in my mind that Obama is a one-term president,” says one passionate Democrat. “Even if he were a great president, this economy is a calamity. And in the end, ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’”

“No one ever had to tell Hillary that,” says a disgruntled member of Clinton’s 18 million.

Leslie Bennetts is a longtime contributing editor at Vanity Fair and the author of the national bestseller The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?

**************************

imo…Hillary won’t oppose O…he needs to drop out for Hillary to have an opening…

…i’d love to see reporters start asking O if ‘he ran for prez too soon and should have gotten more experience…AND does he think Hillary would have been a better Prez and negotiator…as is being widely suggested and discussed by his supporters and critics…

I mentioned in my little diatribe @ 9:10 this am, apparently Obama’s Cabinet was kept in the dark, as well as the Seals- It will all come out. The Seals could have spoken to people already if the Bin Laden assassination was faked which then would make sense Obama wanting to silence them.

I am still pondering the Barnhardt articles, and one of the things that bugs me, among the obvious, is that Hillary is in that photo with the group listening/watching what was going on. If it’s a hoax, that means she is in on it???

======================

Thank you for some very good sense!

Accusing the SEALS of “staging” such a hoax is bad enough. But accusing Hillary too?

“May 2, 2011: The Bin Laden operation occurs. In all likelihood, a low-to-mid level Taliban or insurgent leader is killed.”

The SEAL team would have had no thoughts of stagecraft; they would have been carrying out yet another mission.
[….]
Seems there would be a lot of military folks, spanning all ranks, very upset as the truth seeped out regarding how they were being used in the news.

==========================

Then, as Shadowfax wisely pointed out, what about Hillary and the others in the White House watching an account of the operation? They were gathered in advance, watching someone from the military give the realtime account. How did Obama get this military spokesman to do such “staged” reporting?

Seeped out? The story was broadcast instantly. (The timings did add up: witnesses in Pakistan reported the helicpoter attack happening at the same time as the WH viewing.) Obama flew to shake hands with the SEALS. They knew what he was claiming. And NONE of them broke it then? They stood there and shook hands with him?

This is a classic ‘conspiracy’ theory: too many people would have to be involved in such a conspiracy.

Sure, you can call inflation (by any means) a ‘default’ on the creditors. (Remember some Chinese a year or so ago saying “We hate you guys” for cheapening US money.)

But going around yelling “Default!” on the debt ceiling thing was irresponsible. That’s like “Fire!” in a theatre — when what you’ve got is a pictures labeled ‘fire.’

You’re right on this, though:
“End 2008 early 2009, virtually all economists were calling for a stimulus to support demand. That stimulus should have been used for asset creation and we wouldn’t be in the position we are now.”

Mrs. Smith
apparently Obama’s Cabinet was kept in the dark, as well as the Seals-

======================

Sure. So the military spokesman who spoke to Hillary and the group (not the cabinet, actually) was falsely reporting the event, which was coming in on cameras live from the SEALS, into a military headquarters with a military staff watching all the feeds, and they were all going along with a false claim that the victim was bin Laden….

Wait, maybe all the video feeds coming in were faked, too! By the same people who faked the moon landing coverage!

Rick Perry intends to use a speech in South Carolina on Saturday to make clear that he’s running for president, POLITICO has learned.

According to two sources familiar with the plan, the Texas governor will remove any doubt about his White House intentions during his appearance at a RedState conference in Charleston.

It’s uncertain whether Saturday will mark a formal declaration, but Perry’s decision to disclose his intentions the same day as the Ames straw poll — and then hours later make his first trip to New Hampshire — will send shock waves through the race and upend whatever results come out of the straw poll.

had news on…turned channel…reporter on CNN said she spoke to a broker on the floor and as soon as O stopped speaking about 20-30 minutes ago, the dow dropped another 150 points…on cnn, she goes on…broker said, they are all saying that this is the same thing O always says…O is not saying anything to assure investors…and “there is no leadership” “they are looking for leadership from the WH and there is none”

O is a much bigger disaster than many ever imagined…the imposter is naked…

…btw…if anyone caught O’s remarks…he is even having trouble reading the teleprompter…his words for the loss of the navy seals was so bland…the man is cold…like ice going thru his veins…

The tremendous 7% crash in stock market prices over the last five trading days serves as over-whelming evidence that the President of the United States or someone in his inner circle leaked “material non-public information” to Wall Street traders that the AAA credit rating of the United States of America would be downgraded.. Leaking of such information is criminal activity for both the trader who profits and the leaker. Depending on the level of the leak in his Administration; the President may be forced to resign of face severe sanctions.

Standard & Poors (S&P) has been providing credit rating services since 1860. The firm is extremely sensitive to the effect of rating changes have on the value of the securities they review and has an extraordinary capability to track the communications and actions of their employees to avoid any impropriety associated with the securities markets. In the case of a downgrade of the United States, every member of the firm would have known that exposure of such a leak by an S&P staff member would create a scandal that would destroy the 151 year-old firm and the offenders sentenced to long prison terms. Consequently, there is only a remote possibility that an employee of the S&P would have leaked the downgrade to Wall Street.

Reuters News Service reported from a source familiar with the talks on Friday: “Obama was briefed earlier in the day regarding S&P’s intentions, but discussions only took place with Treasury officials and did not include the White House.” This statement suggests the worst type of political spin possible. Either the President is completely incompetent in financial matters or he is disengaged from the plight of the nation!

It is preposterous to believe that the Administration would not have maintained intimate contact with the rating agencies over the last six months as the Sovereign Debt Crisis ravaged much of Europe. As the former CEO of two New York Stock Exchange listed companies and Treasurer of Orange County, California; I am personally familiar with policies and the procedures of each of the credit ratings firms. Ratings agencies meet regularly with every organization they rate. When S&P is about to issue a change in credit rating, they send a preliminary rating and a justification for the rating to the organization. The organization is given the opportunity to formally respond in writing to the proposed ratings change. The formal response is then forwarded to the Standard & Poors Credit Committee for final review. In the momentous event of the issuance of a preliminary downgrade of the United States; the most senior credit analysts at S&P would have personally met with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and senior Treasury staff. President Obama himself or another White House official would have attended the meeting to provide the Administration’s input.

Bloomberg Financial Services estimated that the stock market losses for the week prior to the S&P downgrade were $840 billion for the S&P 500 index of the largest U.S. companies and $2.7 trillion for stock prices world-wide. Most of those stupendous losses were suffered by individual and pension funds who tend to hold stocks for long term appreciation; but some traders who were “short the market” would have made significant profits. Shorting stocks is a speculative investment strategy that is perfectly legal; but the speed and severity of the recent decline indicates powerful traders “in-the-know “about the coming downgrade illegally shorted massive amounts of stock and made epic profits on insider-trading.

Insider trading is subject to criminal prosecution by the Justice Department under Section 32(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Individuals face up to 20 years in prison for criminal securities fraud and/or a fine up to $5 million for each “willful” violation. In addition violators are usually charged with mail and wire fraud (which carry additional 20 year prison terms); general “securities fraud” (up to 25 years in prison); and possibly racketeering, tax evasion, and or obstruction of justice. Civil penalties from enforcement by the Securities & Exchange Commission are the greater of $1 million in fines or treble the amount of the illegal insider-trading profit.

It appears that when Congress left Thursday to go home for a month recess in their home Districts; they were oblivious to the impending S&P downgrade the U.S. on Friday evening. With the humiliation of losing our nation’s AAA credit rating on top of existing fears the economy may be falling back into recession; constituent’s anger will blister their local Senators and Representatives. To deflect that anger, Congress will call for investigations. One of those investigations needs to focus on: “when did the President know and who did he tell.”

Hmmm… I distinctly remember when Cabinet members were watching the LIVE feed of the SEALS taking over the Bin Laden compound there was a 15 to 20 minute lapse (dead space in the LIVE feed considered classified..heh)
_______________________

7. White House Wasn’t Watching the Whole Operation Unfold

“But the next day, CIA Director Leon Panetta told PBS, “Once those teams went into the compound, I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes that we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. There were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.”

He was a half hour late. His head turned from side to side as if he were attending a tennis match. He practically never looked in the camera, as if he were averting our gaze. And those were the strong parts of President Obama’s disastrous speech.

It was a bit like a slow-motion car crash. After a while, one stopped listening to the blather and simply watched the stock ticker go down and down. And down some more.

Obama had all weekend and the best he could come up with was a reiteration of his plea for a “balanced” approach to deficit control. That’s right. We have a tumbling stock market, over 9 percent unemployment and a flight to gold (some investment advisers say it will be at $2,500 per ounce by year’s end). All he can do is promise to raise taxes.

Now that’s not exactly right. He did trot our proposals for a one-year extension of the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits. And he promised to make his own proposal to the debt committee. That’s it. It is what he has been saying for what seems like forever. He has nothing new.

He did say one indisputably true thing: The downgrade was more a comment on our political dysfunction than on our ability to repay our debts. That is the dysfunction that he has presided over. That is the paralysis he perpetuated by insisting for months on tax increases. He was describing his own disastrous tenure as president.

This illuminated Obama’s predicament — devoid of ideas, bitter about political opposition and completely in over his head. If the election were held today, I bet he’d lose. By a lot.

He was a half hour late. His head turned from side to side as if he were attending a tennis match. He practically never looked in the camera, as if he were averting our gaze. And those were the strong parts of President Obama’s disastrous speech.

It was a bit like a slow-motion car crash. After a while, one stopped listening to the blather and simply watched the stock ticker go down and down. And down some more.

Obama had all weekend and the best he could come up with was a reiteration of his plea for a “balanced” approach to deficit control. That’s right. We have a tumbling stock market, over 9 percent unemployment and a flight to gold (some investment advisers say it will be at $2,500 per ounce by year’s end). All he can do is promise to raise taxes.

Now that’s not exactly right. He did trot our proposals for a one-year extension of the payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment benefits. And he promised to make his own proposal to the debt committee. That’s it. It is what he has been saying for what seems like forever. He has nothing new.

He did say one indisputably true thing: The downgrade was more a comment on our political dysfunction than on our ability to repay our debts. That is the dysfunction that he has presided over. That is the paralysis he perpetuated by insisting for months on tax increases. He was describing his own disastrous tenure as president.

This illuminated Obama’s predicament — devoid of ideas, bitter about political opposition and completely in over his head. If the election were held today, I bet he’d lose. By a lot.

Donald Trump flirted with a presidential candidacy earlier this year and decided not to go for the gold. But the New York billionaire this afternoon expressed admiration for another high-profile Republican currently flirting with a presidential run: Rick Perry.

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Trump praised the Texas governor, as well as active GOP White House candidate Michele Bachmann and possible contender Sarah Palin.

“I do know the governor of Texas,” Trump told Blitzer. “He’s a very interesting candidate, I think, a very interesting candidate.”

Trump decided in May that he would not seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. But he left the door open for a possible Independent run next fall if the Republicans nominated the “wrong” candidate. (Hint: He spoke critically about GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney.)

No time to look for that right now. So what’s your point? That the military hq and spokesman took that 20-25 minutes to substitute some fake footage to show Hillary and the others? What, the whole hq in on it?

Still bet they got it from those who faked the moon landing!

(Seriously I doubt the WH saw raw footage from the SEALs helmets at all, it would be too chaotic. Probably what they got was some military guy summarizing what some other military guys said they were seeing on their separate monitors.

Assuming you believe there were any cameras, or any helmets, or any SEALS at all….)

Very few civilians know the pain of loss of a son or daughter, husband or wife, father or mother or brother or sister to war.
The vast majority of those who do not know that pain also struggle to communicate their sympathy and their sorrow for the loss of the loved ones.

Rabbi Harold Kushner once counseled the friends of grieving to simply “show up and shut up.” Don’t try to lessen the hurt, he added, and certainly don’t pretend to understand the depth of loss.

But show up. Stand with the grieving. Cry with the devastated. How does a whole country do that?

Almost 10 years after the war began, the country awoke on Saturday morning to the awful news of an enormous loss.

Thousands of families have had to accept these dark tidings over the past decade, and our country has generally responded with comfort and kindness as the families themselves have endured and honored their dead with extraordinary courage and determination.

This blow has few parallels except Sept. 11 itself and the horrible day in Beirut in October 1983 when 241 servicemen were murdered by the bombing of the Marine barracks there.

Because these special operators had so recently done the world such a service, and because they have come to represent courage and selflessness, the shock of their loss is matched only by the resolve of their brothers-in-arms.

The Washington Post reported on concerns “voiced by senior U.S. officials” over “the impact of the loss on the American public’s psyche and support for the increasingly unpopular conflict.”

Perhaps some will react in that fashion, but most will simply mourn, and ask how they can help comfort the families of the fallen and encourage those who remain on the front lines of the war.

For the former purpose, there is the Navy SEAL Foundation (nswfoundation.org) and the United Warrior Survivor Foundation (frogfriends.com).

For the latter, simple recognition of the incredible sacrifice borne by so few for so many will serve.

When Abraham Lincoln was called upon to dedicate the cemetery at Gettysburg in November 1863, his sorrow as commander in chief mixed with his deep certainty of the justice of the cause he led.

“It is for us the living,” Lincoln declared, “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.”

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

As the nation mourns its loss, just as it has the losses of 10 years of a war it did not choose and which it cannot avoid, the greatest thing that civilians can do is remember that their lives and the lives of their children and grandchildren are what they are because of warriors flying through mountain passes half a world away.

Examiner Columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School

London Turks not messing about…..Apparently Violent clashes now on Kingsland Road, Hackney,London as hundreds of Turkish men taking on the rioting youths. 100’s of turkish men chasing groups of young black men down kingsland rd hackney incredible scene

Another twist to the S&P downgrading.. All that glitters is NOT Gold..
________________________

Should Obama Just Pay Off Ratings Agencies (Like Bankers Did)?

Sun, 08/07/2011

Joe Conason

When Standard and Poor’s announced its dreaded downgrade of U.S. Treasury bonds from their traditional AAA status last Friday, perhaps all the investors, legislators and citizens who trembled ought to have laughed instead. Perhaps they should ask whether S&P, as one of the handful of ratings agencies whose dubious conduct spurred the financial crisis, might still esteem Uncle Sam’s credit if only the Treasury doled out enormous fees to the agencies for those ratings – just like the bankers whose junk securities they had deemed impeccably AAA paid for those ratings.

Indeed, it seems reasonable to wonder if the weekend threat by top S&P executives to further downgrade government bonds is actually a solicitation for the same lucrative fees that bankers paid for those false stamps of approval on their mortgage-backed securities back before the housing bubble exploded. A famous old New York politician once disparaged the practice of law as an exercise in “learning how to call a bribe a fee” — a description that might well apply to the ratings business during the years leading up to the crisis.

Does the government need to pay the ratings agencies to recover AAA ratings for its bonds? Or is it time to simply disregard their ratings, as the legendary investor Warren Buffett yesterday said that he does?

Recent investigations by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have raised fundamental questions about why and whether anyone still retains confidence in the opinions issued by S&P and Moody’s. To say that their sterling ratings of credit default obligations and other exotic mortgage-based loans were “inaccurate” is far too polite, particularly because the profits and stock prices of the ratings firms depended so heavily on the fees they earned from the investment banks whose securities they graded.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission’s final report succinctly states the basic facts: “The three credit rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown. The mortgage-related securities at the heart of the crisis could not have been marketed and sold without their seal of approval…Their ratings helped the market soar and their downgrades through 2007 and 2008 wreaked havoc across markets and firms.” Former FCIC commission member Byron Georgiou, now running for the US Senate from Nevada, says he was “incredulous” when he learned of the S&P downgrade, noting acidly how the ratings agencies fattened themselves on payments from the same Wall Street banks that issued the worthless securities they had repeatedly endorsed.

Echoing the FCIC report, the Senate subcommittee found that both S&P and Moody’s knew as early as 2006 that sub-prime mortgages were extremely risky, but continued to issue “investment-grade ratings” on securities based on those mortgages for several months. The subcommittee sharply criticized the “issuer pays” model used by the ratings agencies, the foundation of their unsound relationships with Wall Street companies and their feckless endorsements of products that led to the crash.

As Nomi Prins explained in the Daily Beast, there is deep irony and awful hypocrisy in the S&P downgrade if only because the nation’s worsening fiscal problems resulted directly from the ratings agencies’ own behavior. Moreover, those agencies have yet another conflict of interest in their confrontation with the federal government, whose regulators are supposed to police the future activities of the ratings agencies to ensure that they don’t repeat their past misdeeds.

But the credibility of the credit raters may at long last be suffering the same fate that they have sought to inflict on the United States. In a Saturday interview with Bloomberg Television,, financial icon Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Corporation, said he disagrees with the downgrade. The United States deserves a “quadruple A” rating, he told Bloomberg correspondent Betty Liu. Moreover, although Berkshire is the biggest shareholder in Moody’s Corp., he told Liu that he doesn’t bother to consult the views of ratings firms when trading securities.

Nor for that matter will the S&P downgrade affect investment decisions at Western Asset Management, the Legg Mason Inc. division that oversees $365 billion in financial assets. The firm’s chief investment officer, Stephen Walsh, told Bloomberg: “Our money funds are required to invest in securities with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, but it doesn’t speak to a rating. Our conversations with central banks and foreign investors show that they won’t view Treasuries differently [despite the downgrade].”

So Standard’s poor rating ultimately may not make the sky fall after all – and the government won’t have to cough up a billion-dollar fee to persuade them that their own country is still a credit worthy institution.

———
Yes, he said it on Greta, but he was also saying nice things about Sarah and Bachman. It doesn’t take much to have Trump say something nice about someone in general, but he doesn’t say he supports them for President. He is no-committal to anyone now.

I agree- Trump is probably waiting to support the strongest of the bunch. If Perry throws his hat in, I’m willing to bet Trump will back him as the R candidate.
——–
I don’t know about that Mrs S, I still think Trump is pondering the run himself…not sure if he likes Perry more than anyone else, it wasn’t apparent the way he talked about all of them. He wants someone that can kick Baracko out…so he is pretty much looking for the same person all of us are looking for…that broken teacup. Trump also wants someone that is probably more in the middle, not sure if any of the contenders are.

In Bayswater west London violencw has spread- windows smashed on a number of shops.
Turkish and Kurdish males now chasing black thugs in Stoke Newington.
Islamic men near Finsbury Park mosque chasing black thugs.
Massive fire in Woolwich now around the nearly complete new square, all the investment in regenerating the area now going to waste.
Getting info that Chalk farm and Camden is dangerous.
Radio 5 reports youths with machetes in Notting Hill!
Ealing shopping centre in flames

Mrs. Smith,
You right as rain…I’m not at all thrilled about Rick Perry…he’s a crook and uses all that Bible stuff to get ahead plus he used to be a democrat..Perry has been disaster on Texas…why would Trump find that interesting is beyond me??? Probably because he knows there will be a 50/50 split, the centrists won’t vote for him and perhaps this will make Hillary come out….afterall it was Perry who put in to law the mandatory sonogram pictures for every woman who is conteplating an abortion….that goes again everything Hillary stands for and it does me too. Perry also made it mandatory that all school GIRLS get that vaccine that will protect them from cancer….this man can NOT become Potus…Obama needs to resign NOW!
Obama is toast and he knows it…he might as well pull an LBJ!

Good seeing you- where have you been we miss you! It’s nice and relaxed here now- well, except for the lonely Troll who is ignored. Please come back… we miss your Texass humor… 🙂
___________________________

“afterall it was Perry who put in to law the mandatory sonogram pictures for every woman who is conteplating an abortion….that goes again everything Hillary stands for and it does me too. Perry also made it mandatory that all school GIRLS get that vaccine that will protect them from cancer…”
_____________________

Government mandating new vaccines is a big no-no…I cked wiki on the Guardasil and the TX legislature overrode Perry’s X-Order but only until 11′ this year.

Merck is the pharma company who has been pushing the vaccine. I see money changing hands.. $$$$
_________________________

When a sitting president cannot utilize the economy as a means of getting re-elected, things tend to get a wee bit worrisome for the campaign team. For Barack Obama, this worry has led to a still sympathetic Hollywood community willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a film whose intent is to show President Obama as a fearless anti-terrorism warrior who bravely led our special forces into battle to kill Osama Bin Laden.

Hyperbole you say? Sadly, no.

Producers Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal are this very moment working diligently to bring the killing of Bin Laden to the Big Screen – with a currently scheduled release date a mere three weeks before voters decide if they want to give Barack Obama a second term. Coincidence? Not quite. The Obama administration has been working hand in hand with Bigelow and Boal in forming the soon-to-be released White House approved portrayal of the Bin Laden raid. Mark Boal in particular has reportedly been given an all-access pass to Washington D.C. and even the Pentagon – a situation that has elicited more than a bit of off-the-record grumblings from top military officials.

Besides sharing a slew of far left Big Government ideals, why else is Hollywood so protective of an Obama presidency? Ah, just a bit of investigative peek-a-boo reveals what is perhaps the real motivations forHollywood ’s willingness to deploy a big budget production to try and convince voters Barack Obama is not a detached wimp who so often appears utterly uncomfortable in the presence of the military.

In 2009 President Obama and his fellow Democrats provided Hollywood studios with a quarter BILLION dollar tax break. These same studios had just recorded all-time record profits, but not a word of resentment came from Barack Obama against that fact. No, he instead signed into law a massivetax break for his far left Hollywood pals. Now it appears Hollywood is set to pay Obama back with a pre-2012 election film that will be using the military as pro-Obama propaganda props, while working overtime to portray Barack Obama as the bravest Commander in Chief badass in the history of America.

Doing this quickly, because I have little time right now, haven’t checked this out. Someone at Glenn Greenwald’s blog points out…

Veteran’s Today has some thoughts on that as well:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today 31 NATO troops, 20 of them Navy Seals from the Osama bin Laden operation died in what is reported as a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. The chances of this story being true is almost nil. The chances of this being a staged coverup is over 80%. We believe these people were murdered to silence them. This is why.

We have solid information on two areas:

Osama bin Laden died in 2001 as an active CIA employee and his body was recovered in Afghanistan and taken to “the sand box.” We were told it was frozen. We have so much verification from this, CIA, ISI, US military and top officials. I have a direct confirmation from Bin Laden’s CIA handler who I grilled mercilessly on this.

The Abbottabad operation involved numerous American deaths, witnessed, bodies all over, a helicopter crash. (suppressed translated TV interview below) These bodies were recovered by land vehicle from Islamabad and there was NO “successful” bin Laden operation of any kind. There was and has been a CIA safe house in Abbotabad where terror suspects were stored for years.

Mrs. Smith,
I think he’s going to pull a LBJ soon to, maybe by September or sooner…now that we’ll know what Perry is going to do by Saturday….He will (Perry) will definitely get the nomination….he’s a Bushite! What this I’m reading about Soro’s making another billion when our credit rating went down???? Another inside job no doubt…

Looking at various news sources, there are quite a few statements saying none of the SEALS from the bin Laden raid were killed in the Afgan crash. One sources ‘a pentagon official’, another sources ‘a NATO statement.’

Is anyone even directly claiming that any of those same individuals were killed? Just a lot of implications.

It’s even hard to find out how many members that “same unit” had. (About like trying to find any acknowledgement that SS BRINGS IN revenue with payroll tax.)

Jan- Obama wants to be seen as a hero and this movie about the SEAL Team 6 coming out after the SEAL Team tragedy carries with it a very BAD omen for Obama.

People repeatedly blowing their own horns about their accomplishments is a sign of mental sickness. They need to create an atmosphere of adoration usually in company with heroic activity large or small.
________________________

This Ann Barnhardt is a well known friend and well respected individual with the military. A quote from ohanson’s link:

“Our thanks to Ann Barnhardt for passing this along the personal source news below.”

Tips from Afghanistan …from Ann Barnhardt

“I received a tip from a soldier stationed with an aviation brigade out of Jalalabad overnight.

“Almost immediately, after news of the crash began to spread, we were placed in an internet and phone blackout. This means communication with family, friends and “others” back home, in real time, is prevented until further notice.

However, there are also chinook pilots, crews and mechanics assigned here who were privy to the details of the crash almost immediately.

One of confirmed details they have been discussing is that the chinook shot down belonged to a National Guard unit. Which is causing people to whisper in astonishment.”

“Ann, I’m sure you’re getting a lot of notes on the Chinook debacle. I’m retired USAF familiar with how the system works when it comes to the questions asked by your Jalalabad contact. First, look to the Command Authority.

Dispersion protocols are almost never broken except on direct order up the chain high enough that nobody could question or refuse the order without jeopardizing their career.

Second, ‘who benefits’? Follow the trail of beneficiaries to the incident. Tactically, intell had to be passed to the shooters as to the timetable.

I’m willing to bet that there were several RPG’s (if not Stinger’s – remember, we provided quite a few and never kept a record during the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan) involved. Then, once fired, the shooters had to egress unseen to fight another day.

Many people I know, including some recently back from that area say this stinks to high Heaven, as you do.”

Paul Mason | 10:47 UK time, Tuesday, 19 April 2011
INT. DAYTIME: High above the capital city of a major country two credit rating executives, their sleeves rolled up, their Blackberries switched to silent, stare at each other over a desk:

“Hey boss we got another one o’ those countries getting close to our proprietory benchmark for too much debt!”